User talk:Marcelus

This is Marcelus's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives: 1

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Mykhailo Kolodzinsky when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you explain why the other 2 sources have been removed all of sudden? Mattczaplinski (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe you ask about my edit on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia? Their authors were primarily summarizing and citing the findings of earlier researchers rather than presenting original research or new conclusions of their own. Motyka was the only source of the three that was writing about the subject of the article. Marcelus (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Waszmość, why did you undo my revision of the Commonwealth page?? This name "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" was never the CONVENTIONAL name for the state. Never, ever. Neither in English, nor Polish, nor latin. I am bothered by the term "elective monarchy" etc. ignoring the Republican character of the state. Even the Republic of Novgorod, ruled by a Prince is called a "Mix Republic" and Venice is called a Classical Republic. Why not use "Noble's Democracy" with elective head of state as a unique system? Do you think international audiences are too stupid to understand what that means? The Rzeczpospolita being a monarchy is a misconception. Yes, it had a monarch, like Novgorod, like Venice, but it was a Republic. It wasn't even dynastic at all, unlike Novgorod. So, please. Let us solve this problem, because this is horrible. Jastrząb Żmudzki (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jastrząb Żmudzki Hi. Template:Infobox country specifies that conventional_long_name parameter is for the "Formal or official full name of the country in English", and sources in the body of the article are clear that "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania" was the most commonly used official name of the country. PLC was a monarchy, today it's political system is most often described as "monarchia mixta" - "mixed monarchy". It was definitely a monarchy, same as the UK today is monarchy too. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No it was not. It was just used to the end of the 16th century. Can you provide a source that it was used after the 16th century? There are no mentions of it. No, it was not a monarchy "same as the UK" it had a distinct Republican character. Why are you so entrenched in these views? Jastrząb Żmudzki (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please check: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth#Name and United Kingdom. Try to avoid personal remarks. Marcelus (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century Polish sculptors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ^SMason_Garrison 12:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm writing in regards to the statements about Melnyk in the article 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis. Initially my edit there was undone by you with the statement "Please don't whitewash Ukrainian WW2 history". Please note that personal attacks are forbidden by Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Just because you disagree with something, that doesn't mean other party is "whitewashing" anything.

As for your latest revert and statement about him being imprisoned only in 1944, that is incorrect. He was under house arrest most of the war in Berlin where he was put in late July 1941, until he attempted to flee but was caught and then sentenced to Sachsenhausen. Source 1, 2, 3. Korwinski (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Korwinski Hi. I wasn't attacking you personally, I was just describing you edits. And in the two edits I reverted 1) mention of UPA collaboration with Germany was removed 2) mention of Melnyk collaboration with Germany was removed 3) false information of his arrestation right after June 30, 1941 was added. These are straight up whitewashing of the Ukrainian WW2 history. And I will call it what it is. Marcelus (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marcelus: You may describe it how you feel, but according to Wikipedia rules it is a personal attack to which you had resorted again. Please refrain from doing that again in order for us to have civilised discussion. In regards to the rest:

1. Could you provide sources that state UPA had collaborated with Germany with extended examples of such collaboration? Not OUN. Not some of it's members. But specifically UPA. Like I had mentioned UPA was created after OUN(b) and former policemen ceased their connection with Germans. And while OUN(b) and policemen did collaborate previously, UPA itself didn't (see Ukrainian Insurgent Army#Relations with Germany). So saying some soldiers (activists etc.) or political wing of UPA had previously collaborated is factually correct. But saying UPA itself had collaborated is factually incorrect. Similarly saying soldiers of SS Galizien had collaborated is factually correct. But saying UPA or French resistance itself had collaborated because some of the soldiers of SS Galizien had joined them is factually incorrect. On top of that it's irrelevant to the topic of this article as Polish politicians protest is about their actions roughly in between 1943-1944 against Polish civilians, and not about events prior or after that including relations with Germans, Americans etc. So clear violation of Wikipedia:Relevance. Based on that I had removed that information, which was supported by another editor.

2. In case of Melnyk he tried to collaborate, but was arrested before any of that materialised. OUN(b) were able to form Roland Battalion and Nachtigall Battalion before Bandera's arrest. So clear examples of collaboration. Melnyk? Never happened. Germans turned to OUN(m) after OUN(b) arrests and they formed Bukovinian kurin, Auxilliary police units etc. but Melnyk by that point was already under house arrest. As per Talk:Andriy Melnyk (officer)#Role in the_Holocaust and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 519#Andriy Melnyk (officer) no sources were found to confirm his involvement into their creation. In general:

As he was under arrest in Germany through most of the war, Melnyk’s degree of culpability in the Holocaust and a murderous fight with ethnic Poles in western Ukraine in 1945 has divided historians ever since.

With that presenting ambiguous claims as a fact is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

3. Could you provide sources that state that information about his house arrest from July 1941 until 1944 was fabricated (false) etc.? Korwinski (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

1) UPA collaborated with Germans since early 1944; relevant information can be found in Ukrainian Insurgent Army. As a result of this collaboration several OUN leaders were released in September 1944, among them Melnyk. Germans supplied UPA, they also parachuted Yuriy Lopatynsky in December 1944 to western Ukraine.

2) Melnyk faction collaborated with Germany before and throughout the whole war. He himself organised and supported various forms of collaboration, from socio-political bodies (such as Ukrainian Central Committee) to military units (such as Ukrainian Legion of Self-Defense). As late as March 1945 he co-organised collaborationist Ukrainian National Committee and Ukrainian National Army. Claiming that Melnyk didn't collaborate is just bizarre.

3) Melnyk was arrested in January 1944, before that he was living under a surveillance in Berlin, and later in Vienna; see [1] Marcelus (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. I had checked entire article for claims about their German collaboration and the only place where it's mentioned it references this source which does not mention it. Thank you for pointing out the mistake there for me to fix, but that still does not answer my question above about UPA.

2. In the source that you yourself had referenced says:

In 1941 (most likely in May–June), he traveled to Kraków several times, after which the Germans prohibited him from leaving the capital of the Reich. Melnyk's disappearance from public life led to the spread of various rumors among members of his own party. For example, it was claimed that "Leader Melnyk had perished" [3], that "Melnyk is a 72-year-old old man," that "Melnyk sold Ukraine to the Germans," that "Melnyk has been arrested," and so forth [4]..

He indeed remained a nominal leader of melnykites, but here and elsewhere no sources were found to confirm his involvement into creation of these units or organisations such as Ukrainian Legion of Self-Defense that was created while he was still under house arrest in 1943. There's no mention of his involvement in the creation of Ukrainian National Army on it's page. Also for his involvement into UNC, his involvement is mentioned once and the source says the following:

Mel’nyk was initially pressured by the Germans to form a committee; within a week he even succeeded in reaching a nominal agreement with various political émigré groups: the monarchists around Skoropads’kyi, socialists, the Petliurites and Livyts’kyi, as well as Bandera. He prepared a declaration pledging the establishment of a sovereign Ukrainian ethnographic state, calling for no subordination to either Vlasov or any other Russian committee, and demanding the Galizien Division be the basis for a national army. He was even prepared to make concessions while suggesting Eastern Galicia remain in the future German sphere of interest.2407 However, these positions were too much for the Germans who were not yet prepared to give an émigré committee formal recognition, transforming it into a government-in-exile. source

3.

a) You did not provide any source that says all previously provided sources were false.

b) You reference Radchenko who does not say that they were just living under surveillance. He himself says house arrest, yet puts that in brackets claiming there's more to the story. Yet the only arguments for that he names are that in 1942 he was able to host visitors and that in late 1943 they were able to move to Vienna after Berlin came under intensified bombing. Korwinski (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Korwinski:

> Відповідно до офіційного мельниківського наративу, «вождь ОУН» з 1941 р. перебував під «домашнім арештом» у Берліні [1]. Як ми вже бачили вище, ситуація була складнішою, бо у 1942 р. до нього приїжджали члени партії, щоб розказати про ситуацію в окупованій Україні.

Melnyk's freedom of movement was limited, but he wasn't arrested, it happened only in 1944. Even if you assume that he was arrested in 1941, there is a ton of collaboration before that. Marcelus (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, I mentioned that in 3.b. «домашнім арештом» is translated as house arrest. There's nothing there saying about any freedom of movement, but the fact that he was allowed to move to Vienna in late 1943 due to bombing and then allowed to visit Berlin to meet with German representatives.

2. The "ton of collaboration" I assume is his pre-WW2 work with Abwehr. The problem is Wikipedia:Relevance.

In any case the undo action on UPA article without providing the reasons to keep the statement not supported by the source and quote provided there had forced me to report your actions to Notice board. Korwinski (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. «домашнім арештом» is in quotation marks, and author challenges this notion; the fact that he was able to receive visitors and was able to move to other city, shows that he wasn't under strict house arrest.

2. No. He collaborated before the war, and after the war, which started in 1939, so long before his supposed "house arrest" in 1941. Marcelus (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please don't take this the wrong way (and I'm not admonishing you) but was your copy-edit of Andriy Melnyk (officer) LLM-assisted? I've struggled to find the material cited in Rossolinksi-Liebe (2014), chapter 9 is about the commemoration of Bandera and doesn't appear to mention Melnyk-- the material also reads to me a bit like an LLM's WP:SYNTH. Just letting you know for the future in case that's accurate and I haven't missed something. There are a couple of other instances where sources were misrepresented (I think I caught everything). Joko2468 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply