Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum/Archive 3

2806:. 2nd: moreover he is even falsifying this non-objective, biased source he added as reference: in the article Timothy Snyder wrote this: "Béla Kovács is a member of the Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik and the treasurer of the Alliance of European National Movements.". Volunteer Marek falsified extreme-right into "Neo-Nazi". while even Jobbik being extreme-right can be disputed, it is still an utter lie to call it or its MEP a Neo-Nazi. Jobbik is 2nd-3rd largest party in Hungary with over 20% of votes in the last elections a month ago. claiming it to be a neo nazi party is a simple anti-Hungarian libel which translates into 20% of Hungarians being Neo-Nazis as well. no wonder Volunteer Marek has only a Paul Krugman phrase on his editor page - Paul Krugman is known in Hungary as someone giving space regularly in his blog to Kim Lane Scheppele a well known anti-Hungarian who in the 90s worked for SZDSZ, a party that went from being the 2nd biggest in 1990 to being hated and extinct (less than 1% on 2010 elections) for its anti-Hungarian policies. 909:

any official treaties nobody recognized it illegitimare. Dont forget - annexion and rejoining are different things. Russia joined the peninsula without a one shot. And officially there were no Russian troops there except the Sevastopol forces (officially had right to base there), officially (if you are such a pedant) other troops were self-defence soldiers without Russia symbolics on the uniform. (Ps in fact if be honest we all know that that's all because the nato leaders have butthurt when they understood that they forever lost the possibility to occupy such an important point as crimea

1058:

term simplest facts is a concern what one considers as simple is not necessarily what another person does and that's part of the problem the pointless slow edit war is caused by. One of you needs to be the better editor and simply take back to RM for a further discussion. If all you are interested in is helping the encyclopedia in a neutral manor then doing so causes no undue harm to the encyclopedia and is worth whilst not only on this article. Also I suggest you both remember this article is under discretionary sanctions.

870:. Now. Let me repeat myself for umpteenth time. There already was a discussion at RSN about RT. The prevailing view was that RT is not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts". That means I don't have to "Go to RSN". That's already been done. It means that I can simply remove any instance where RT is being used to cite anything but "simplest facts". Which is what I've done. That's consensus. If you don't like it, it's up to you to change people's minds at RSN. 1125: 31: 2966:

to recognize the results of the vote (88%)(...)Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula."d This is a reliable source and I think it should be included.--

829:- see above. Describing these guys with ties to neo-nazi and far-right groups as "international observers" who said that the "referendum was legitimate" is most certainly controversial. Listing their names without explaining who they are, to make it seem like the referendum was observed by neutral parties (who's heard of these guys???), is a sneaky way of POV pushing. There's also a question of 661:. I don't need to "get RT banned" from Knowledge. I can simply remove it because it's not a reliable source and for the most part the statements which are cited to it already have other, actually reliable sources. And *you* are the one making non-consensual changes, with the difference that your changes are in contradiction of Knowledge policy 2938: 1295:. Currently, all 5 editors there (excluding VM himself) oppose removing RT without explaining each particular instance. Thus, the consensus surely is NOT that RT can be removed with only saying non-RS. I am going to revert the article to the pre-VM state and then I will try to reapply subsequent undisputed edits. — 1528:"Status quo" or "last version edited by User:Petr Matas" is NOT the same thing as "consensus". If that were the case Knowledge articles could not be improved (except with your permission I guess). That's a bit of a self serving and disingenuous interpretation of what "consensus" means. It's also a violation of 1681:

By the way this is a very inappropriate RFC as it is a policy/guideline question. A local consensus here cannot override the larger consensus of the general community. It is also seems to be directing comments within the RFC at an editor. If you feel that the editor has edit warred report them to the

1057:

The best thing to do would be to take the source back to RM, consensus can and does change on top of that the discussion did not have enough editors to make a proper consensus and a couple of valid concerns were raised about the previous one. Consensus also simply can and does change. In addition the

642:

I don't need to do anything cause I'm simply revering non-consensual changes. It's you who needs to start a discussion on RSN, explaining what exactly you think is unreliable in the statements sourced from RT. Also, in order to have the right to remove RT from the article completely, you will need to

548:

If an "innocent statement" is already sourced to a sound, reliable source then it doesn't need an additional citation to a unreliable, controversial source such as RT. And as far as HP goes... again, are we reading the same discussion? Yes, the initiator of that thread went on a crazy rant against it

453:

There's no presumption in favor of the status quo on Knowledge, otherwise articles would never see improvement. And I could just as well argue that I am restoring to the state before somebody else came. Removing and deleting POV material cited to unreliable sources constitutes article improvement. An

3098:

Illarionov in the lede. I actually don't care if it's specifically Illrionov's numbers which are mentioned in the lede, but quite simply there needs to be some mention of alternative, independent estimates of frequency and outcome in the lede. This is particularly true since otherwise all we have in

2912:

Hi all, just wanted to note that the article says: "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including the European Union, United States, ....". However, the European Union isn't a country. Shouldn't it read, "The referendum was considered illegitimate by most countries including

2538:

IF, this organization was actually invited by the Russian or the Crimean government then it does seem noteworthy that such a group would be invited to "monitor elections". However I'm not 100% if this was a case. Rather it seems like they might have just invited themselves. If that is the case, then

1744:

I find the last comment rather unhelpful, given these editors are disputing the source every time hence the ongoing edit war, saying editors don't need to explain is unhelpful, they should be explaining in their edit summary exactly why they are removing in each case, not explaining in cases such as

1450:

The same applies to you Petr, stop edit warring and discuss. You both have valid points but neither of you are going to achieve a thing over edit warring. You can & should reach a consensus here before continuing. Marek must provide a valid reason for removing sources, there is no excuse for not

956:

Is UNIAN a Ukrainian-government agency or is it independent? If the former is it editorially independent (not the same thing - for example PBS is a US government organization but editorially independent and probably airs stuff way more critical of US government than American non-government sources)?

908:

marek, each people have a right to self-identification as it said in the un rules. When your Poland (or where are you from) separated from Russia, or when czech separated from Austria nobody boycotted them or recognized it illegitimate, when the west Germany in fact annexed the east Germany without

436:

As for the RSN discussion, I didn't notice Bobrainer's opinion and misread JYtdog's statement. Still, JYtdog says "RT is probably fine for simple facts", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial". Sepsis II says "only .. if they are reporting facts which conflict with facts other

2965:

is a renown research institution often dealing with voting, polls and social issues. Here is the relevant part: "For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought

1600:

You've both had your cheap digs ok, enough. Marek I think he means should the point raised at the RS be removed, but that would be futile at present given its a valid statement and being discussed. Everything else you should discuss here, raise the points you feel need added and the source you wish

1040:

As I've said several times, the whole issue of these "observers" is really separate, but connected, to the issue of reliability of RT. The question there is how to present the facts about these "observers" in a neutral and accurate manner. You can't just quote one guy saying "there were observers",

714:

It's ANYTHING but a "simple fact". Come on! Let's not play games. The "observers" were from a self-appointed group with ties to Neo-Nazi and far-right organizations. Apparently they were invited by the Russian government (!) although I would want to find reliable confirmation of that before putting

509:

This is true, which is why RT can be used for simple facts. Also note that in the majority of cases where I removed RT, there were other, reliable, sources already supporting the text. Hence, including RT was not even needed. There was one or two instances where controversial text was being sourced

1570:

As you state it above, yes, of course. It's a controversial statement, cited to unreliable sources. But, like I already said multiple times, the issue here is bigger/different than just the use of RT as a source. It has to do with how to neutrally present the information about the "observers" in a

742:

Why are you saying things like this? You are obviously trying to push your opinion into the article. (Actually, you don't need to push anything into it, it already represents all sides. But you want it to say only what you like it to say and nothing else. Your opinions are too strong to be able to

169:

Your description of the issue is inaccurate. I did *not* remove RT from the article entirely. I merely removed it where 1) there were other, more reliable sources, already given (in which case I kept the text). This was the majority of my edit and 2) it was citing dubious and controversial info. I

1830:

I moved this line, "There were reports of people able to vote multiple times and not having to be from Crimea to vote, with turnout exceeding 100% in some places, 123% in Sevastopol." from the lead to the procedure section as the media sources given cite a Ukrainian blogger for their claims. This

1175:

That's controversial story. BTW: If there are Crimean "authorities", then there are Ukrainian "authorities", due to procedural violations (Con. and Supr. Courts weren't involved in impeachment proccedings at all, Rada was surrounded by armed men from Maidan Self-defence etc.). This is revolution,

400:

I think the discussion you are pointing me to can be used as a proof that RT is reliable. Because user Zavtek who expressed their own opinion that RT was unreliable happened to be a sockpuppet. Another user, not a sockpuppet, said RT could be trusted. I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number

2490:

In the head of the article, there is the phrase "The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered." It was sourced by three links, two of which were clones of each other and said nothing of any international observers. The third source is

1467:

You asked at DRN which version is correct, simply the answer is neither both should be improved on. You need to learn to work together to improve not simply edit war and blast each other, you will both as all editors do need to make concessions to make sure the article is neutral and ultimately

2809:

looking more into Volunteer Marek's edits in this article i came to the conclusion that he is doing a an anti-Russian propaganda job, a crusade lacking any objectiveness. i hereby asking real editors to overview his edits and clean the article of them and ensure that it is unbiased, objective,

209:

Otherwise this is a straight up dishonest attempt at misleading the reader and trying to get them to believe that this is some legitimate independent body. The list of EODE "observers" likewise does not belong here, aside perhaps from noting, that these are people with some pretty nasty views.

208:

is not any kind of official body of observers but a sketchy group with ties to far-right and neo-Nazi groups. Who cares what they think. If anything, if they really were "invited" by the Russian government... yeah, maybe that fact should be included, but it sure needs to be worded differently.

759:

My opinions are fine and reflect what the reliable sources say. EODE has no legitimate international standing. It *is* a motley collection of right-wing extremists. There is no credibility to these guys and we shouldn't pretend that there is - THAT would be "trying to push an opinion into the

1041:

based on RT, without also mentioning WHO these observers were (a who's who of far-right extremists), how they came to "observe" (either self-appointed or invited by the Russian government, still not 100% sure) and how OTHER, actually reliable, sources describe them (as a joke, more or less).

3326:

Enrique Ravello has belonged to the neo-Nazi CEDADE and now belongs to the extreme-right Plataforma per Catalunya. Luc Michel used to belong to the neo-Nazi Fédération d’action nationaliste et européenne and now supports a blend of fascism and Bolshevism that is also popular among Russia's

3578:

I know, and a discussion about a content issue should be kept together, if possible. If you discuss all content issues mentioned in this section here, it will be a mess. However, the dispute we are having is about the process. If a more suitable place for it exists, please bring it there.

2595:

Snyder's claim that the observers were far-right is clearly overblown. There are three Czech observers named in the entry. None of them is far-right (nor far-left either). Determining what proportion of observers are indeed associated with far-right parties would be an useful information.

2003:

I doubt we're going to get a more reliable source for how the error was made for the same reason we don't have reliable sources for the original error - it's not notable. Only obscure Ukrainian media and blogs commented on the ITAR-TASS error. I'd support just removing the whole thing.

774:

Continuing this discussion is not going to get anywhere. No consensus. I'm reverting. Go to RSN and explain to them what exacly was incorrect in the sentences you deleted and how these sentences demonstrate that RT is unreliable and should be removed from the article completely.

3352:

in regard to the report on the actual frequency and voting by the President of the Russian Federation Human Rights Council, which includes removal of reliable sources and substitution of non-English sources when English ones are available. Stick to the sources and leave them in

3438:В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является 803:

There hasn't been decided anything definite. Yes, in controversial case RT shoudln't be used. How is the list of observers controversial? Is there any reasonable doubt that it is correct? And why did you remove all RT references? Your edits were not constructive.

3440:.". Pretty what I said in thread above. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion, but we must attribute this document correctly, to avoid misleading our readers. Likewise, I'm not opposed to Snyder inclusion ("according to" is pretty correct attribution, IMO). Bests, 851:

No, your removed valuable info and made the article even more non-neutral than it was. You deleted references simply because you wanted to delete all references to RT. Go to RSN and we'll see what they say. But explain to them what exactly you removed and why.

1378:

What has been "proved" is a lack of consensus for *including* sketchy info and unreliable sources. "Consensus" doesn't mean "I do whatever I want as long as I find one other person to support me". It seems you're the one who's having a bad case of

2351:, so story is complicated (but well, Yatsenuk, for example, claims that he was behind Turchynov veto on repealing lang. law - even trough there is a clear evidence of opposite (his vote for repeal on VerkhRada site). I'm not pretending, that this 1806:

We could also write that overwhelming humanity did not accept the referendum, because 100 UN member states voted in favor of the resolution which declared it invalid, and 10 were against the resolution. Which one do you see closer to the truth?

2801:

i tracked down the edit which added this libel as information. it was made by volunteer marek 12:50 april 4. 1st: his source cannot be considered objective or unbiased since it is from new republic. go see controversies in the wiki article of

2578:

In the article you are referring to Timothy Snyder is expressing his own opinion, without providing any evidence to back up his claim. Please explain what gives any relevance to his words. I cannot see any reason to quote him in the article. -

2666:

Petr, can you keep the discussion within the same section? Claiming that the section is "most controversial" is not the same as actually explaining why it's suppose to be POV. I don't know what "controversy will be discovered through editing"

3201:

informed that the observers did not report any violations". Yes, yes, yes. I'm sure RT News "informed". But a Knowledge article isn't a platform to present Kremlin views. Sure, we include info on their position but this is just over doing

248:

RT is a reliable source. Your edits are POV. Please stop attempting to delete valuable information. It looks very strange and unconstructive when you remove a source and add {{citation needed}} instead. You should better remove all the

3436:- I don't care about that) the original source? I can read Russian text and I can confirm: it was report by Council member (namely by Evgeny Aleksandrovich Bobrov), not by the Council itself. And council itself has confirmed, that " 165:

I did NOT start an edit war. As can be seen right below here, I'm the one who initiated the discussion. The edit war was began with other editors who insisted on retoring dubious information, unreliable sources, and unneeded

2685:(by Soviet authorities) to WWII fighters against Nazi Germany, but Lvivske removes this part "to soldiers, fought against Nazi Germany" because "this labels protesters as neo-Nazi". Why we can't label protesters but should 3150:

Inclusion of Malyshev's statement and numbers in the observers' section. Again this is cited to RT news and is also redundant with the previous sentence. The use of non-reliable sources to repeat dubious claims violates

2208:

Ok. Look. We do NOT use reddit comments as sources. Period. If you think we do, you need to find some other project to contribute to. On the other hand, the 123% frequency is also mentioned in this Timothy Snyder column

3552:. Please return the content disputes into their already rich sections and discuss there. The dispute over the latest mutual reversions between me and VM should be resolved quickly so that we can resume the cooperation. 415:

Ummm, no, no it can. The editors involved in the discussion, regardless of who this Zavtek fellah is, clearly state that RT cannot be considered reliable except for simplest facts. Are we reading the same conversation?

283:

No, actually it's not. Removing an unreliable source and replacing it by a tag is standard procedure. This gives a chance for other editors to find an actual reliable source. If they cannot do so, then the text is

715:

it in. They were a collection of crazy politicians from all kinds of nasty organizations. So you can't just put that in there as if it was a "simple fact". It's not, nevermind the dubious reliability of sources.

2648:

This is the most controversial section of the article and it's discussion will be quite lengthy. The controversy will be discovered through editing and we should discuss each element in a separate section. —

1310:

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. Right above you try to blame me for problems with a section which I didn't even edit. Now you're twisting my words at WP:RSN. It's beginning hard to assume good faith

837:- because it's not a reliable source, except for "simplest facts" and in many cases was not needed. Generally we need only one solid, reliable, citation to support something. My edits improved the article. 3060:

Please do not make major changes to this section - such as removing sourced statements (same goes for the lede) - without discussing them first. You cannot unilaterally make big revisions (seemingly per

2253: 3129:

soapboxing and engaging in original research. Like I said, Illarionov doesn't have to be mentioned by name in the lede, but you can't just present only "official" results and source these to unreliable

1661:

and observation and was actually not accurate. See the response I left. Editors should be following the Bold, revert discuss cycle but more important, if this becomes a content dispute please consider

728:

This - the question how to convey information about these "observers" in the article - is actually a bit of a separate issue from the RT issue and should probably be discussed in the separate section.

1784:

Thats fact It's 💕, yes? Yes. you are not its owner, yes? Yes. youre not a teacher, im not a pupil, yes? Yes. You dont have right to disrupt my well-founded words. If u wanna, prove it seriously

2093:

together with the original and corrected ITAR-TASS reports of the press conference as supporting sources. It would be OR/synthesis but I think this is one of the those situations where we should

2066:

Ah, I didn't realize that. Well, do we really need a source to replace Reddit? I think the corrected ITAR-TASS article alone can serve as a citation to support the text as it currently stands.

657:

No, you are inserting non-reliable sources into the article. As pointed out repeatedly, there already HAVE BEEN discussions at RSN. I'm getting a sense that what we have here is a bad case of

760:

article". On the other hand, if it is true that the Russian government actually invited these neo-nazi guys to observe the referendum... well, yeah, that's noteworthy and should be discussed.

2491:

Russia Today, a Russian-sponsored news source. Does anyone have any additional sources for the existence of these observers or should we change the sentence to something like "According to

573:

You, on the other hand, are trying to present things like there's a ban on RT and removed references from non-controversial sentences. Why did you remove them? Was RT banned from Knowledge?

1157:

says that OSCE was invited, but by Ukrainian government, not the Crimean one, but when they tried to enter, they were fired upon - not clear if this was an invitation to act as observers.

3244:. This is being discussed above. There's neither consensus nor any policy based reason for removing this expert's and specialist's opinion. There's certainly no support for this removal. 1451:

and you should stop adding them without discussing, and they should only be used non controversially with context the example given at RS is a clear case where its reliable with context.

1131:

btw. Crimea invited OSCE observers on referendum but they're rejected offer on grounds, that they won't monitor breakaway elections without consent (request from) of central government.

524:

No, it doesn't address my comment. I think you deleted RT references from perfectly innocent statements, including, as you said yourself, the ones that were supported by other sources.

434:

My intentions are good cause I am not changing the article, I am just restoring it to the state it was in before you came. I am not deleting sources and parts I don't like, but you do.

1981:

There is at least one good reason to include even such unreliable source: To attribute the original idea to its author, even if it is a semi-anonymous comments section contributor. —

938:

your posts. About whole RT discussion. I'm think, that we should remove ALL sources, directly affinilated with conflicting sides (both RT & UNIAN), because they would naturally

1917:

The use of Reddit as a source is disputed. I believe that it is permissible here, because the claim is also supported independently by other reliable sources, like ITAR-TASS. —

1022:

say that representatives from 135 countries monitored the election, they quoted the Crimean election official as saying that. Does anyone doubt that is what he actually said?

510:

to RT alone and in those cases I either removed the text or put in a citation needed tag. Again, standard procedure. (This also addresses Moscow Connection's comment above).

339:, and other Ukrainian sources used. No one touches them. 3. Volunteer Marek's edits across Knowledge are so obviously POV that I think he should be banned from the topic. -- 589:

One more time. I removed them because RT is in general not a reliable source (except for simple facts) and the relevant text already had other, actually reliable, sources.

531: 304: 2532: 205: 1153:, apparently because they think that real election observers such as OSCE (rather than a joke like EODE) are "NATO saboteurs" and that previous reports were incorrect. 2717:

But we're not talking about the monuments, we're talking about the observers. We can start a different section about the monuments, but here let's stick to the topic.

2759:

There is an open POV-related dispute in the following section and more are going to come. As the tag says, it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. —

2535:

a group with no international standing with links to far-right and Neo-Nazi organizations. I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether this info should be included.

2851:. Also, if you think that being anti-Jobbik is the same as being "anti-Hungarian" then you're the one who has a problem not me. Anyway, I'm fine with "far-right". 1158: 617:

Yes, I also removed parts of text that could not be supported by reliable sources. But that's not what you were complaining about in the comment(s) right above:

86: 81: 76: 64: 59: 942:

positions of their owners (Russian and Ukrainian gov'ts respectively). Or at least not post their statements as pure facts, but only as " reported that...".

551:"The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo" 3065:) and then, afterward, demand that your new version for which there is no consensus has to be the starting point of any discussion. That smacks strongly of 457:

And again, it's not up to me to justify removal of POV and unreliable sources. How about YOU list a statement which you want to include and we discuss it?

439:

Please explain what is controversial in every statement you deleted a source from. Please list them one by one and explain what you think is incorrect. --

2181:"ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total (which lead some people to report a 123% turnout in Sevastopol), but corrected it later." 2849: 2089:

I'm not opposed to its inclusion but it doesn't look good to have Reddit as a citation. Perhaps we could add the explanation for the error and and use

1554:

A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to

1161:

says that OSCE observers were not let in, and instead the Crimean "authorities" invited various extremist far-right politicians to act as "observers".

833:. Who cares that some extremists certified Putin's referendum? Now, if they were asked to do so by the Russian government, that's a different story. 2661: 1601:

to verify them and people will comment on it to decide if controversial or needed. Its the only way to proceed given there is a clear dispute here.

2050: 2960: 2779:

wtf? u call this objective, non-biased information? this is simple zionist propaganda. a lie. and article is locked so one cannot even fix it.

1272:. If You would start removing "citations of RT news" "without explaining each particular instance removal", then You are only going to initiate 2820: 2786: 1203:

Ummmmmm.... that section about the OSCE is exactly the same as "before VM came". So how am I suppose to be to blame for it? Please, drop the

307:- "RT is not appropriate for foreign politics, international relations", "it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial." etc. 1831:

seems like undue weight to me for inclusion in the article but I want to discuss it or wait for better sources before removing it entirely.

1791: 494:

That means, that even biased sources like RT may be valuable in some cases. For example, RT can be used without concerns for the statement

3177:

I didn't quit, I suggested you combine the two paragraphs/sentences which say essentially the same thing into one. Which you haven't done.

1403:

as much or more so than Petr. No excuses stop edit warring and discuss, there is absolutely no justification for whats been going on here.

1851: 2385: 2233: 47: 17: 212:

Please do not restore unreliable sources, misrepresent info regarding these "observers" or otherwise try to push a POV in this article.

2920: 303:

I also don't agree that RT can be considered a reliable source where Russian foreign policy is concerned. See a recent discussion at

204:

RT and RT news is not a reliable source for anything except its own opinions. It has no place in this article citing facts. The EODE

1146: 3072:

Also, it makes perfect sense to have independent assessments of turnout and voting in the lede so don't be removing that either.

3595: 318: 2752:

If we mix all observer-related disputes in a single section, we won't get anywhere. The far-right vs. neo-nazi discussion has

2102: 454:

encyclopedia is not an accumulation of random junk. In fact, cutting junk is what an "editor" does in any publishing venture.

123:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2120:

Off-topic: I think that media would verify their sources better if there was a service reporting on all proven canards. —

1734:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1266:(there is no such thing as a compelling source, if We are talking about maintaining an encyclopedia that is inclined to 979: 697:

VM removed "Mikhail Malyshev said 135 observers were registered." – a simple fact, which had three different sources. —

354:

before. They're not reliable except for simplest facts. As to Ukrainska Pravda and UNIAN, feel free to bring that up at

1264:

most certainly qualifies to be in the Reflist of Knowledge's Articles; though it is definitely not a compelling source

2913:

those in the European Union,..." or some variant on that? I can't change it myself because the article is protected.

857: 809: 780: 750: 648: 608: 580: 539: 444: 406: 377: 344: 266: 3672: 3523:

Also, check that all my edits since 8 April, when I changed my behavior, fall into one of the following categories:

3294:

ties to neo-Nazi groups and that's very well documented. Who these "observers" were is pertinent and important info.

603:

That's not true, you also removed parts of text. Everything must be put back if there's no consensus for removal. --

2561: 2306:

Well, if this is a debunked rumor, then it's removal is fine for me. I'm not going to insist on it's re-inclusion.

2210: 2198: 2144: 2110: 2071: 2040: 2009: 1887: 1836: 1327:

Sorry meant RS and I've responded there. Need to start proper proof reading my talkpage posts, tend to do quickly.

38: 173:

You're mixing up the usage of RT with the issue of the so-called "observers" which is a whole different kertuffle.

3569: 3478: 3380: 3334: 3271: 3225: 3182: 3135: 3077: 2971: 2870:

Would rather agree: equating one party with entire people (regardless of how party popular is) is something from

2860: 2725: 2672: 2621: 2568: 2548: 2456:

BTW it follows that the Guardian quote is inaccurate. I will add the relevant info to the main article shortly.—

2440: 2329: 2276: 2217: 1751: 1607: 1576: 1540: 1474: 1457: 1409: 1388: 1333: 1316: 1238: 1212: 1166: 1064: 1046: 1027: 962: 925: 878: 842: 794: 765: 733: 674: 633: 594: 558: 515: 462: 425: 391: 363: 289: 235: 217: 181: 1968:

I do not say that it is a reliable source. You cannot rely on it, but what rule prevents you from including it?

1486:

there had been consensus since hundreds of revisions before VM came (Oh, I did it... Sorry, I couldn't help it.)

1154: 2824: 2790: 1905: 1795: 1400: 1380: 1100: 867: 658: 1429:, but they closed it immediately, because we have an RfC. I refuse to believe that no procedure for enforcing 2237: 745:

No, it's not a separate issue cause you deleted the list of observers and some other info related to them. --

2634:

emphasis on "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism on observers part. Far-right is, IMO, enough. Bests,

2389: 1256:

and intelligently and responsibly Edit Knowledge in the light of WP:BALANCE, and not to consider "removing"

3008:: three very pro-russian cities. Tatars are only 7% of the population in Simferopol and 0% in Sevastopol.-- 3604: 3585: 3573: 3558: 3539: 3518: 3509: 3500: 3482: 3449: 3409: 3384: 3370: 3338: 3311: 3275: 3261: 3229: 3215: 3186: 3172: 3139: 3120: 3081: 3047: 3036: 3021: 2996: 2975: 2967: 2949: 2928: 2924: 2902: 2883: 2864: 2842: 2835: 2828: 2794: 2763: 2743: 2729: 2712: 2698: 2676: 2653: 2643: 2625: 2605: 2588: 2572: 2552: 2525: 2514: 2504: 2479: 2465: 2447: 2432: 2421: 2410: 2393: 2368: 2344: 2334: 2315: 2298: 2280: 2265: 2241: 2221: 2202: 2187: 2148: 2124: 2114: 2084: 2080:

We don't, but the question is: Does Reddit have to be removed? I think that its inclusion does no harm. —

2075: 2061: 2044: 2026: 2013: 1998: 1991: 1985: 1976: 1947: 1921: 1912: 1891: 1877: 1840: 1819: 1799: 1779: 1772: 1756: 1725: 1704: 1691: 1674: 1651: 1621: 1612: 1589: 1580: 1565: 1544: 1499: 1479: 1462: 1437: 1414: 1392: 1369: 1362: 1356: 1349: 1338: 1320: 1299: 1284: 1273: 1242: 1216: 1204: 1198: 1185: 1170: 1140: 1112: 1094: 1069: 1050: 1031: 991: 966: 951: 929: 882: 861: 853: 846: 813: 805: 798: 784: 776: 769: 754: 746: 737: 701: 678: 652: 644: 637: 612: 604: 598: 584: 576: 562: 543: 535: 519: 502: 466: 448: 440: 429: 410: 402: 395: 381: 373: 367: 340: 323: 293: 270: 262: 239: 221: 185: 153: 111: 3321: 3062: 2453: 2194: 2140: 2106: 2067: 2036: 2005: 1883: 1873: 1832: 1721: 1687: 1670: 972: 329:

1. If you think they are not reliable, you should say what exactly you think is incorrect. 2. There are

107: 1233:

I say yes, they can be removed in this instance. RT is not really a good source for this information.

624:

And no, "everything" must NOT be put back... because you feel like it. You need 1) convince people at

3565: 3474: 3427: 3376: 3330: 3267: 3221: 3178: 3131: 3073: 2983:

yeah already added a good portion to the pro-russia unrest page, interesting numbers but confusing --

2916: 2856: 2816: 2782: 2721: 2668: 2617: 2564: 2544: 2381: 2324: 2272: 2229: 2213: 1863:

Dividing by the population of 385462(which is inaccurate), you get 81.3%. The stated ratio is 82,71%.

1787: 1746: 1602: 1572: 1536: 1469: 1452: 1404: 1384: 1328: 1312: 1234: 1208: 1162: 1087: 1059: 1042: 1023: 958: 921: 874: 838: 790: 761: 729: 670: 629: 590: 554: 511: 458: 421: 387: 359: 285: 231: 213: 177: 142: 3619: 2962: 1555: 1176:

guys, and it naturally breaks the law (on both sides). Let's stay neutral ("and demand civility").

313: 226:

Please read the international laws, volunteer marek before trying to disruptively edit our article

3126: 2597: 2580: 2472: 2457: 2898:

section, one instance should be removed. It is also useless to mention the OSCE mission there. —

2871: 2500: 1207:

attitude and refrain from making baseless accusations against me. That's not very nice or honest.

910: 821:- no, it has been decided that RT is not a reliable source for anything except "simplest facts". 3286:

Changes in the wording which discusses the EODE. This is at best an attempt at whitewashing and

1010:

they present are accurate. It has nothing to do with the opinions they present. I notice that

1882:

I can't find any more reliable sources either so I'll remove the bit about +100% turnout rate.

3445: 3152: 3032: 3016: 2991: 2879: 2739: 2708: 2694: 2639: 2601: 2584: 2461: 2364: 2323:

Can you present the source to say was later discounted, you need to present evidence not talk.

2311: 2293: 2261: 1942: 1253: 1181: 1136: 1108: 987: 947: 917: 628:

that RT is in fact a reliable source (good luck with that) and 2) get consensus FOR inclusion.

571:. I was talking about a particular controversial sentence sourced from it. See the difference? 251: 170:

left RT in place where it was citing simple facts (current version has couple citations to it)

3432:

Dear colleague, don't you think, that English sources misrepresent (either by an accident or

3287: 3100: 3027:

IMO, we may add both Memorial poll (AKA 'presidential council report') and this one. Bests,

2852: 2803: 1869: 1741: 1717: 1683: 1666: 975: 331: 103: 3600: 3591: 3581: 3554: 3535: 3514: 3496: 3405: 3366: 3307: 3257: 3211: 3168: 3116: 3043: 2956:

Overwhelming majorities in Crimea support becoming part of Russia-Pew Research Center poll

2946: 2899: 2839: 2760: 2686: 2650: 2540: 2522: 2511: 2476: 2444: 2418: 2184: 2132: 2121: 2081: 2058: 2023: 1995: 1982: 1973: 1918: 1909: 1816: 1776: 1701: 1648: 1618: 1586: 1562: 1496: 1434: 1366: 1353: 1346: 1296: 1261: 1195: 1124: 1091: 982:

side). Therefore, if we retain it as a RS for this article, it must be used with caution.

830: 698: 499: 150: 2179:

The synthesis consists of the words "incorrectly" and "error" and can be easily removed:

437:

RS' are reporting" (which is probably true for any source, so that's an positive opinion.

2032: 2019: 3241: 3066: 2557: 2101:

thoughts on the idea before making the edit. It seems this is only getting bigger with

1267: 935: 666: 308: 2510:

I found some sources, which give Mikhail Malyshev as the originator of the numbers. —

2049:

We can, but many people seem worried about the 123% turnout since the calculation was

3317: 3099:

there is the "official" numbers sourced to Russian government propaganda outlet. See

2496: 2094: 1662: 1644: 1529: 1492: 1430: 1426: 1292: 1277: 1150: 789:

There already have been discussions at RSN. How many times do I have to repeat that?

625: 487: 355: 351: 146: 134:

RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) be removed from the article

3683: 3251:

Snyder's claim is already paraphrased with attribution in the section, according to

1399:

At this moment in time Marek as your last revery showed it seems you have a case of

305:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Enquiry concerning the RT Network

3441: 3349: 3028: 3010: 2985: 2875: 2735: 2704: 2690: 2635: 2492: 2360: 2307: 2287: 2257: 2098: 1969: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1177: 1132: 1104: 983: 943: 662: 498:

Conclusion: Every particular disputed source use has to be discussed separately. —

3673:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/17/6244866/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html

3004:

So I reviewed the article and the skew in high popularity may be because the poll

2682: 350:

As Number 57 points out above whether RT is reliable or not has been discussed at

1361:

In my opinion, the lack of consensus for removing has been proved, but VM still

190:

I've removed straight up POV-ing of the article and misinformation. For example

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2848:

It is embarrassingly easy to find sources which call Jobbik a "neo-Nazi party"

1712:

And the answer is actually yes, editors can make bold edits without explaining

1468:

unbiased to one side or another. Neither of you are necessarily right or wrong.

3433: 1011: 939: 492:

Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

2681:

Likewise, it's well-sourced, that fallen Soviet soldiers monuments are those

1930:

sniff test? This is invalid by any metric of wikipedia and is beyond typical

2443:. I don't think they would lie on this, but another source may be needed. — 2437:"no mention of this result in press release or polling data released by gfk" 162:

Your description of an issue is non-neutral which is NOT how you open an RFC

3512:

be assessed as a whole, as there are already talk sections for each issue.

2256:

this link is "pure propaganda?" Or Washington News became RT subdivision?*

3091:

between the older version and the changes Petr is trying to force through

2660:

Both "admirer of Adolf Hitler" and antisemitism is well sourced (see also

1488:, but you just convinced me, that it is silly and that we have to move on: 643:

get RT banned from Knowledge. Right now, your changes must be reverted. --

3652: 2703:

And BTW, I'd like to apologize for misunderstandings we had in the past.

2415:"Institute has no web presence outside of press release, doubtful source" 2378:

if u think that RT is propaganda why washington post cant be propaganda

873:

And what valuable - and sourced to reliable sources - info did I remove?

567:

Little prospect of a "blanket ban". I didn't say anything about a ban on

1268:

describe different-different point of views with a neutral point of view

3198: 3631: 3114:. The discussion is currently not in favor of Illarionov in the lead. 1551:

I am asking whether you still want to remove the following statement:

3620:

Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News

2454:

http://avaazpress.s3.amazonaws.com/558_Crimea.Referendum.Poll.GfK.pdf

2348: 2340: 1847: 2090: 1926:

how is using a site's comment section valid? how does this pass the

1861:

If we subtract 1563724 - 1250426 we get 313298 voters in Sevastopol.

1764:

ukrainska pravda is ukrainian-sponsored source, it cant be reliable

1427:

WP:DRN#Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy

3653:"Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum" 418:

I'm really beginning to doubt your and Number 57's good intentions.

2054: 1745:

these inflame the situation not help it. Were way past normal BRD.

532:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165#Huffington Post

336: 257: 1716:, but if challenged they should discuss the changes afterwards.-- 1014:

who worked for CNN has a show with them. I would point out that

1775:

is a massive POV, OR and non sequitur. It should be reverted. —

1585:

You say "as you state it". How do you propose to fix it then? —

978:, who is actievly involved in current Ukrainian affairs (on pro- 534:. And there's a very controversial statement sourced from it. -- 2285:

it seems these doctored Russian wire-taps will never go away --

825:" - especially in controversial cases, but also not generally. 575:

Now, if there's no consensus, your changes must be reverted. --

3632:"135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea" 3305:. It has been decided that neo-nazi wording will not be used. 2271:

Because this was an internet rumor which was later discounted.

25: 3320:

Ip account ranting and you and another user expressing your

3111: 2347:, but the rest of talk has took place. Shufrych denies talk 3564:

Actually, article talk pages are for discussion of content.

2720:

And apology accepted, and please let me likewise apologize.

1257: 102:

Non admin closing with agreement from originating editor.--

3163: 2103:

the Guardian quoting a 'senior US administration official'

1006:

is unreliable. Reliability btw refers to whether not the

3329:. Is it relevant to the article? Yes. So don't remove it. 3316:

I don't think it was decided at all. Again, you got some

2810:

non-propagandistic and that references arent falsified.

1768:

POV: "overwhelming humanity are loyal to the referendum"

1617:

You mean that we shouldn't discuss that case anymore? —

1535:

I don't understand your last question? Remove what case?

1276:, as Your moves are likely to be reverted. Sincerely, ← 3491: 3092: 2486:

Additional sources for the 135 international observers?

1191: 200: 193: 3006:

only took results in Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Kerch

1194:. Let's start from there and discuss what is wrong. — 3470:

Removal of Illarionov from body of text as well. Why?

3240:

Removal of quote and assessment of Harvard historian

3324:. Is the charge of "neo-nazi" in the source? Quote: 2452:I wrote directly to GfK Ukraine and got this link: 619:

removed references from non-controversial sentences

139:

without explaining each particular instance removal

3155:. It's trying to cram a POV down readers' throats. 2894:The concerns are currently mentioned twice in the 2533:Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections 1491:VM, do you still want to remove the case cited at 1252:: I strongly emphasize You to consider re-reading 1190:I think that this issue was explained well in the 206:Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections 3684:http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/17/7019270/ 2135:but this is pushing it. I think some journalists 1826:Voting irregularities reported in Ukrainian media 2475:, I fixed it myself according to your source. — 2057:, one of the largest Ukrainian news agencies. — 2908:European Union, intro section, fourth paragraph 1857: 3266:Ok, I removed one of the redundant instances. 2560:says that they were in fact invited by Moscow 1103:(RM for "Reliable Media"=="Reliable source"). 496:"Mikhail Malyshev said on press conference..." 2405:Poll by Institute for European Policy Studies 1682:proper venue. I suggest this RFC be closed.-- 1571:way which does not try to mislead the reader. 827:"How is the list of observers controversial?" 819:"There hasn't been decided anything definite" 159:Your attempt to start an rfc is ill-formatted 8: 866:First, please take a minute or two and read 3252: 1846:The alleged 123% "anomaly" was debunked by 3394: 3466:Additional edit with the latest removal: 3302: 3290:. Some of these EODE sponsored observers 2753: 2097:and use common sense. But I want to hear 1850:fairly quickly. Here's their explanation: 3112:#Estimates of real support for secession 2539:who cares, just keep this stuff out per 823:"controversial case RT shoudln't be used 372:Can you provide a proof link, please? -- 230:"Our" article? What international laws? 3612: 3397: 3255:. You are adding another direct quote. 2890:Duplicated concerns about the observers 2776:"the Hungarian neo-Nazi party Jobbik." 2193:Makes sense to me. I'll make the edit. 1859:Somebody mixed 1 724 563 and 1 563 724. 3164:#Russian presentation of the observers 2031:Can't we just ignore that and use the 2022:still contains the erroneous count. — 1904:Incorporated the explanation into the 1813:"overwhelming humanity did not accept" 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2343:, that part of video was a result of 835:why did you remove all RT references? 7: 1484:Ok, I just wanted to point out that 119:The following discussion is closed. 3125:The "discussion" consist mostly of 2521:Ok, I think that it's fixed now. — 1972:says nothing about a sniff test. — 549:but then we have comments such as: 18:Talk:2014 Crimean status referendum 3544:Colleagues, this section is about 3400: 3361: 2663:). Omitting the info would be POV. 2359:this is a debunked rumor". Bests, 1990:Just for others: We are disputing 386:It's in Number 57's comment above. 24: 3510:the latest Volunteer Marek's edit 2441:it has been published by Guardian 2091:the video of the press conference 1809:"Overwhelming humanity are loyal" 3056:Changes to the observers section 2936: 2531:These "observers" were from the 1730:The discussion above is closed. 1123: 29: 3634:. News from Armenia. 2014-03-15 3596:User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek 3197:Same thing goes for the claim " 1002:I do not see any evidence that 3527:Small edits with low frequency 2435:as well. The reason given was 2133:incompetence before conspiracy 1350:does not like major reversions 1: 2139:not to verify their sources. 1151:This source says they didn't 2033:corrected ITAR-TASS article 1291:Ok, I brought the issue to 1149:but OSCE turned them down. 1145:That part is also unclear. 3702: 3655:. CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15 2606:03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 2589:16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 2505:22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 2480:12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 2466:13:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 2448:21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 2422:21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 2394:14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 2369:19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 2335:19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 2316:18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 2299:17:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 2281:17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 2266:16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 2242:14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 2203:17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 2188:08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 2149:02:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 2125:02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 2115:01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 2085:00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 2076:00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 2062:23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2045:23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2027:22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 2020:original ITAR-TASS article 2014:22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1999:22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1986:22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1977:22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1948:21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1922:18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1913:17:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1892:14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1878:14:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1841:12:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 1820:06:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 1800:06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 1780:19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 1757:19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 1147:RIA says they invited them 971:It's owned by governor of 3403:. Please continue there. 2612:Observers section POV tag 2573:13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 2553:13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 2526:14:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 2515:04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 2222:13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 1726:05:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1705:05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1692:05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1675:05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1652:05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1643:Interesting observation: 1622:00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1613:23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1590:05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1581:01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1566:00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 1545:22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1500:22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1480:22:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1463:22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1438:22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1433:exists! I am so sad... — 1415:21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1393:21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1370:21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1357:20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1339:19:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1321:20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1300:19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1285:16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1243:12:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1217:06:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 1199:10:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1186:09:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1171:09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1141:07:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1113:07:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1095:06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1070:01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1051:01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 1032:22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 992:13:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 967:12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 952:12:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 930:12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 883:20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 862:19:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 847:19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 814:19:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 799:18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 785:18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 770:18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 755:18:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 738:18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 702:17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 679:18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 653:18:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 638:18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 613:18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 599:18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 585:17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 563:17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 544:17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 520:16:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 503:16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 467:17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 449:16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 430:16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 420:", hey, right back at ya. 411:16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 396:15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 382:15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 368:15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 324:15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 294:15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 271:15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 240:14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 222:12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 186:20:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 154:20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 112:05:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 3605:03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 3586:04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 3574:04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 3559:04:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 3450:06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 3410:05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 3375:So leave it be for now. 2495:, there were 135 ..." -- 2400:Removal of opinion polls 1732:Please do not modify it. 401:57's good intentions. -- 121:Please do not modify it. 95:Observers and legitimacy 3594:. I am drafting one at 3590:I have found it: It is 3540:22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3519:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3501:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3483:21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3385:22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3371:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3339:22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3312:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3276:22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3262:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3253:#Timothy Snyder's claim 3230:22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3216:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3187:22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3173:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3140:22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3121:22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3082:19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3048:06:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3037:05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 3022:02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 2997:19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 2976:19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 2950:17:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2929:17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2903:16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2884:15:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2865:15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2843:17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2829:14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2795:14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 2764:15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2744:15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2730:15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2713:15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2699:15:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2677:15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2654:14:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2644:14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2626:13:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2413:. The reason given was 2131:I'm inclined to assume 2105:who repeats the claim. 2355:a debunked, I'm said " 1865: 1560: 1556:monitor the referendum 1192:article before VM came 530:is not to be trusted: 3364:, no conclusion yet. 3303:#Far-right, neo-nazis 1552: 1425:I filed a request at 973:Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 132:Can many citations of 42:of past discussions. 3530:Immediate reversions 1645:WP:VPP#BRD enforcing 1363:refuses to accept it 2963:Pew Research Center 2772:propaganda and lies 526:On the other hand, 3166:, which you quit. 2896:Non-OSCE observers 2616:What part is POV? 911:Self-determination 137: 130: 122: 3546:editorial process 3463: 3462: 3350:Original research 3020: 2995: 2919:comment added by 2819:comment added by 2785:comment added by 2734:OK. Accepted :). 2384:comment added by 2297: 2252:Im so sorry, but 2232:comment added by 2226:Donetsk is next 2151: 2127: 1946: 1790:comment added by 1487: 1401:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1381:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1101:WP:RS noticeboard 1099:Perhaps he meant 868:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 854:Moscow Connection 806:Moscow Connection 777:Moscow Connection 747:Moscow Connection 659:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 645:Moscow Connection 605:Moscow Connection 577:Moscow Connection 536:Moscow Connection 441:Moscow Connection 403:Moscow Connection 374:Moscow Connection 341:Moscow Connection 263:Moscow Connection 252:Ukrayinska Pravda 135: 128: 120: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3693: 3686: 3681: 3675: 3670: 3664: 3663: 3661: 3660: 3649: 3643: 3642: 3640: 3639: 3628: 3622: 3617: 3603: 3584: 3557: 3538: 3517: 3499: 3431: 3408: 3399:Reply copied to 3395: 3369: 3310: 3260: 3214: 3171: 3119: 3046: 3014: 2989: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2931: 2872:not-so-old times 2831: 2804:The New Republic 2797: 2433:has been removed 2411:has been removed 2396: 2332: 2327: 2291: 2244: 2195:Stephen J Sharpe 2141:Stephen J Sharpe 2130: 2119: 2107:Stephen J Sharpe 2095:ignore all rules 2068:Stephen J Sharpe 2037:Stephen J Sharpe 2006:Stephen J Sharpe 1940: 1884:Stephen J Sharpe 1833:Stephen J Sharpe 1802: 1754: 1749: 1742:User:Mark Miller 1610: 1605: 1485: 1477: 1472: 1460: 1455: 1412: 1407: 1336: 1331: 1282: 1127: 1090:: What is RM? — 1067: 1062: 976:Ihor Kolomoyskyi 743:edit neutrally.) 332:Ukrainska Pravda 321: 316: 311: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3701: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3682: 3678: 3671: 3667: 3658: 3656: 3651: 3650: 3646: 3637: 3635: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3618: 3614: 3599: 3580: 3566:Volunteer Marek 3553: 3534: 3513: 3508:I propose that 3495: 3475:Volunteer Marek 3464: 3428:Volunteer Marek 3425: 3412: 3404: 3377:Volunteer Marek 3365: 3331:Volunteer Marek 3306: 3268:Volunteer Marek 3256: 3222:Volunteer Marek 3210: 3179:Volunteer Marek 3167: 3132:Volunteer Marek 3115: 3089: 3074:Volunteer Marek 3058: 3042: 2968:MyMoloboaccount 2958: 2937: 2935: 2914: 2910: 2892: 2857:Volunteer Marek 2855:it if you must. 2821:178.164.254.139 2814: 2787:178.164.254.139 2780: 2774: 2722:Volunteer Marek 2669:Volunteer Marek 2618:Volunteer Marek 2614: 2565:Volunteer Marek 2545:Volunteer Marek 2488: 2429: 2407: 2402: 2379: 2330: 2325: 2273:Volunteer Marek 2250: 2248:Washington News 2227: 2214:Volunteer Marek 1828: 1785: 1770: 1752: 1747: 1736: 1735: 1608: 1603: 1573:Volunteer Marek 1537:Volunteer Marek 1475: 1470: 1458: 1453: 1410: 1405: 1385:Volunteer Marek 1347:User:Poeticbent 1334: 1329: 1313:Volunteer Marek 1278: 1274:WP:Edit warring 1262:RT (TV network) 1235:Thargor Orlando 1209:Volunteer Marek 1205:WP:BATTLEGROUND 1163:Volunteer Marek 1088:Blethering Scot 1065: 1060: 1043:Volunteer Marek 959:Volunteer Marek 922:Volunteer Marek 875:Volunteer Marek 839:Volunteer Marek 791:Volunteer Marek 762:Volunteer Marek 730:Volunteer Marek 671:Volunteer Marek 630:Volunteer Marek 591:Volunteer Marek 569:Huffington Post 555:Volunteer Marek 528:Huffington Post 512:Volunteer Marek 459:Volunteer Marek 422:Volunteer Marek 388:Volunteer Marek 360:Volunteer Marek 319: 314: 309: 286:Volunteer Marek 232:Volunteer Marek 214:Volunteer Marek 178:Volunteer Marek 149:by doing so. — 143:Volunteer Marek 125: 116: 115: 114: 97: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3699: 3697: 3688: 3687: 3676: 3665: 3644: 3623: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3588: 3532: 3531: 3528: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3472: 3471: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3414: 3413: 3401:#Voter turnout 3398: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3362:#Voter turnout 3355: 3354: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3327:Eurasianists. 3322:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3296: 3295: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3246: 3245: 3242:Timothy Snyder 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3204: 3203: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3157: 3156: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3105: 3104: 3088: 3085: 3063:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3057: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2957: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2909: 2906: 2891: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2846: 2845: 2800: 2773: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2757: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2718: 2701: 2664: 2657: 2656: 2646: 2613: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2592: 2591: 2558:Timothy Snyder 2529: 2528: 2518: 2517: 2487: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2428: 2425: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2398: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2249: 2246: 2206: 2205: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2128: 1988: 1979: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1915: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1866: 1862: 1860: 1854: 1853: 1827: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1792:85.140.223.199 1769: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1729: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1695: 1694: 1678: 1677: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1533: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1489: 1441: 1440: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1396: 1395: 1373: 1372: 1359: 1342: 1341: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1303: 1302: 1288: 1287: 1246: 1245: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1055: 1054: 1053: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 932: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 871: 744: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 707: 706: 705: 704: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 622: 574: 572: 525: 506: 505: 490:heading says: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 455: 438: 435: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 276: 275: 274: 273: 261:references. -- 243: 242: 175: 174: 171: 167: 163: 160: 126: 117: 101: 100: 99: 98: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3698: 3685: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3669: 3666: 3654: 3648: 3645: 3633: 3627: 3624: 3621: 3616: 3613: 3606: 3602: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3587: 3583: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3521: 3520: 3516: 3511: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3429: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3396: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3363: 3360:Discussed in 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3351: 3348: 3347: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3301:Discussed in 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3213: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3200: 3196: 3195: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3170: 3165: 3162:Discussed in 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3113: 3110:Discussed in 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3093: 3086: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3070: 3068: 3064: 3055: 3049: 3045: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3018: 3013: 3012: 3007: 2998: 2993: 2988: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2961: 2955: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2907: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2897: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2811: 2807: 2805: 2798: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2777: 2771: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2652: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2536: 2534: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2485: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2426: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2404: 2399: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386:85.140.210.32 2383: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345:audio editing 2342: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2328: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2300: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2247: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2234:91.233.244.66 2231: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1949: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1864: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1767: 1765: 1758: 1755: 1750: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657:Yes...it was 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1606: 1599: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1557: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1461: 1456: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1416: 1413: 1408: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1275: 1271: 1269: 1263: 1260:at sight, as 1259: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 974: 970: 969: 968: 964: 960: 955: 954: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 884: 880: 876: 872: 869: 865: 864: 863: 859: 855: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 817: 816: 815: 811: 807: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 773: 772: 771: 767: 763: 758: 757: 756: 752: 748: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 703: 700: 696: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655: 654: 650: 646: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 620: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 570: 566: 565: 564: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 523: 522: 521: 517: 513: 508: 507: 504: 501: 497: 493: 489: 486: 485: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 451: 450: 446: 442: 433: 432: 431: 427: 423: 419: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 371: 370: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 348: 346: 342: 338: 334: 333: 328: 327: 326: 325: 322: 317: 312: 306: 295: 291: 287: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 272: 268: 264: 260: 259: 254: 253: 247: 246: 245: 244: 241: 237: 233: 229: 228: 227: 224: 223: 219: 215: 210: 207: 202: 201: 198: 195: 194: 191: 188: 187: 183: 179: 172: 168: 164: 161: 158: 157: 156: 155: 152: 148: 144: 140: 133: 124: 113: 109: 105: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3679: 3668: 3657:. Retrieved 3647: 3636:. Retrieved 3626: 3615: 3549: 3548:, not about 3545: 3543: 3533: 3522: 3507: 3473: 3465: 3437: 3434:deliberately 3325: 3291: 3127:User:Gootcha 3090: 3071: 3059: 3009: 3005: 3003: 2984: 2959: 2941: 2921:31.220.200.1 2915:— Preceding 2911: 2895: 2893: 2847: 2815:— Preceding 2812: 2808: 2799: 2781:— Preceding 2778: 2775: 2631: 2615: 2556: 2537: 2530: 2497:Petr Hudeček 2493:Russia Today 2489: 2451: 2436: 2430: 2414: 2408: 2380:— Preceding 2377: 2356: 2352: 2305: 2286: 2251: 2228:— Preceding 2225: 2207: 2180: 2178: 2136: 1935: 1858: 1829: 1812: 1808: 1786:— Preceding 1783: 1771: 1763: 1731: 1713: 1711: 1658: 1642: 1553: 1279: 1265: 1258:Russia Today 1249: 1128: 1019: 1015: 1007: 1003: 907: 834: 826: 822: 818: 618: 568: 550: 527: 495: 491: 417: 330: 302: 256: 250: 225: 211: 203: 199: 196: 192: 189: 176: 138: 131: 127: 118: 70: 43: 37: 3492:He is there 3087:Differences 2754:its section 2439:. However, 2427:Poll by GfK 1992:this source 1908:section. — 1870:Ahnoneemoos 1718:Mark Miller 1700:I agree. — 1684:Mark Miller 1667:Mark Miller 1159:This source 1155:This source 934:And please 145:started an 104:Mark Miller 36:This is an 3659:2014-04-02 3638:2014-04-02 3601:Petr Matas 3582:Petr Matas 3555:Petr Matas 3536:Petr Matas 3515:Petr Matas 3497:Petr Matas 3490:How come? 3406:Petr Matas 3367:Petr Matas 3308:Petr Matas 3258:Petr Matas 3220:See above. 3212:Petr Matas 3169:Petr Matas 3153:WP:BALANCE 3117:Petr Matas 3044:Petr Matas 2947:Petr Matas 2900:Petr Matas 2840:Petr Matas 2761:Petr Matas 2651:Petr Matas 2523:Petr Matas 2512:Petr Matas 2477:Petr Matas 2445:Petr Matas 2419:Petr Matas 2409:This poll 2326:Blethering 2185:Petr Matas 2122:Petr Matas 2082:Petr Matas 2059:Petr Matas 2024:Petr Matas 1996:Petr Matas 1983:Petr Matas 1974:Petr Matas 1919:Petr Matas 1910:Petr Matas 1817:Petr Matas 1777:Petr Matas 1748:Blethering 1702:Petr Matas 1649:Petr Matas 1619:Petr Matas 1604:Blethering 1587:Petr Matas 1563:Petr Matas 1497:Petr Matas 1471:Blethering 1454:Blethering 1435:Petr Matas 1406:Blethering 1367:Petr Matas 1354:Petr Matas 1330:Blethering 1297:Petr Matas 1254:WP:BALANCE 1250:Suggestion 1196:Petr Matas 1092:Petr Matas 1061:Blethering 1012:Larry King 980:revolution 918:WP:SOAPBOX 699:Petr Matas 500:Petr Matas 151:Petr Matas 3288:WP:WEASEL 3101:WP:WEIGHT 3011:Львівське 2986:Львівське 2683:dedicated 2431:This one 2339:Tym. has 2288:Львівське 2099:Львівське 2051:published 1937:Львівське 1773:This edit 940:propagate 166:citations 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3592:WP:RfC/U 3130:sources. 3017:говорити 2992:говорити 2917:unsigned 2817:unsigned 2783:unsigned 2756:already. 2689:Russia? 2541:WP:UNDUE 2471:Thanks, 2382:unsigned 2294:говорити 2230:unsigned 1943:говорити 1788:unsigned 1280:Abstruce 1129:Comment: 831:WP:UNDUE 284:removed. 147:edit war 136:entirely 3550:content 3442:Seryo93 3209:Ditto. 3199:RT News 3067:WP:GAME 3041:Agree. 3029:Seryo93 2876:Seryo93 2736:Seryo93 2705:Seryo93 2691:Seryo93 2636:Seryo93 2598:Gootcha 2581:Tamas90 2473:Gootcha 2458:Gootcha 2361:Seryo93 2308:Seryo93 2258:Seryo93 1906:Results 1178:Seryo93 1133:Seryo93 1105:Seryo93 984:Seryo93 944:Seryo93 667:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3353:place. 3318:WP:SPA 2853:Weasel 2667:means. 2349:at all 2137:choose 1848:reddit 1663:WP:DRN 1530:WP:OWN 1431:WP:BRD 1345:Damn, 626:WP:RSN 488:WP:RSN 356:WP:RSN 352:WP:RSN 310:Number 129:Should 2836:Fixed 2813:thx 2687:label 2055:UNIAN 1970:WP:RS 1932:wp:or 1928:WP:RS 1815:? — 1714:first 1311:here. 1008:facts 663:WP:RS 337:UNIAN 258:UNIAN 16:< 3570:talk 3479:talk 3446:talk 3381:talk 3335:talk 3292:have 3272:talk 3226:talk 3183:talk 3136:talk 3078:talk 3033:talk 2972:talk 2942:Done 2925:talk 2880:talk 2861:talk 2825:talk 2791:talk 2740:talk 2726:talk 2709:talk 2695:talk 2673:talk 2640:talk 2632:Over 2622:talk 2602:talk 2585:talk 2569:talk 2549:talk 2501:talk 2462:talk 2417:. — 2390:talk 2365:talk 2341:said 2331:Scot 2312:talk 2277:talk 2262:talk 2238:talk 2218:talk 2199:talk 2145:talk 2111:talk 2072:talk 2041:talk 2018:The 2010:talk 1994:. — 1888:talk 1874:talk 1837:talk 1796:talk 1753:Scot 1722:talk 1688:talk 1671:talk 1659:just 1609:Scot 1577:talk 1541:talk 1495:? — 1476:Scot 1459:Scot 1411:Scot 1389:talk 1365:. — 1352:. — 1335:Scot 1317:talk 1239:talk 1213:talk 1182:talk 1167:talk 1137:talk 1109:talk 1066:Scot 1047:talk 1028:talk 1018:did 988:talk 963:talk 948:talk 936:sign 926:talk 916:See 879:talk 858:talk 843:talk 810:talk 795:talk 781:talk 766:talk 751:talk 734:talk 675:talk 665:and 649:talk 634:talk 609:talk 595:talk 581:talk 559:talk 540:talk 516:talk 463:talk 445:talk 426:talk 407:talk 392:talk 378:talk 364:talk 345:talk 290:talk 267:talk 255:and 236:talk 218:talk 197:and 182:talk 108:talk 3202:it. 3069:. 2254:how 2053:by 1811:or 1665:.-- 1493:RSN 1293:RSN 1024:TFD 1020:not 3598:. 3572:) 3494:. 3481:) 3448:) 3383:) 3337:) 3274:) 3228:) 3185:) 3138:) 3094:: 3080:) 3035:) 2974:) 2945:— 2927:) 2882:) 2874:. 2863:) 2838:— 2827:) 2793:) 2742:) 2728:) 2711:) 2697:) 2675:) 2642:) 2624:) 2604:) 2587:) 2571:) 2551:) 2503:) 2464:) 2392:) 2367:) 2357:IF 2353:is 2314:) 2279:) 2264:) 2240:) 2220:) 2201:) 2183:— 2147:) 2113:) 2074:) 2043:) 2035:? 2012:) 1934:-- 1890:) 1876:) 1839:) 1798:) 1724:) 1690:) 1673:) 1647:— 1579:) 1561:— 1543:) 1391:) 1319:) 1241:) 1215:) 1184:) 1169:) 1139:) 1111:) 1049:) 1030:) 1016:RT 1004:RT 990:) 965:) 950:) 928:) 881:) 860:) 852:-- 845:) 812:) 804:-- 797:) 783:) 775:-- 768:) 753:) 736:) 677:) 651:) 636:) 611:) 597:) 583:) 561:) 542:) 518:) 465:) 447:) 428:) 409:) 394:) 380:) 366:) 358:. 347:) 335:, 292:) 269:) 238:) 220:) 184:) 141:? 110:) 3662:. 3641:. 3568:( 3477:( 3444:( 3430:: 3426:@ 3379:( 3333:( 3270:( 3224:( 3181:( 3134:( 3103:. 3076:( 3031:( 3019:) 3015:( 2994:) 2990:( 2970:( 2923:( 2878:( 2859:( 2823:( 2789:( 2738:( 2724:( 2707:( 2693:( 2671:( 2638:( 2620:( 2600:( 2596:— 2583:( 2567:( 2563:. 2547:( 2543:. 2499:( 2460:( 2388:( 2363:( 2310:( 2296:) 2292:( 2275:( 2260:( 2236:( 2216:( 2212:. 2197:( 2143:( 2109:( 2070:( 2039:( 2008:( 1945:) 1941:( 1886:( 1872:( 1868:— 1835:( 1794:( 1720:( 1686:( 1669:( 1575:( 1558:, 1539:( 1532:. 1387:( 1383:. 1315:( 1270:) 1237:( 1211:( 1180:( 1165:( 1135:( 1107:( 1086:@ 1045:( 1026:( 986:( 961:( 946:( 924:( 920:. 877:( 856:( 841:( 808:( 793:( 779:( 764:( 749:( 732:( 673:( 669:. 647:( 632:( 621:. 607:( 593:( 579:( 557:( 553:. 538:( 514:( 461:( 443:( 424:( 416:" 405:( 390:( 376:( 362:( 343:( 320:7 315:5 288:( 265:( 234:( 216:( 180:( 106:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index