| Revision as of 00:16, 11 December 2007 editKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,820 edits You have been blocked for violation of the 3RR rule. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:54, 11 December 2007 edit undoVanished user 05 (talk | contribs)6,607 edits →Putin articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:true|] ] ] ] ♠ 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:true|] ] ] ] ♠ 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | ||
| ==== | |||
| I'm sorry that I'm intruding into your conversation with Biophys, but I'm awful sure you are falling into a usual paranoia of a beginner Wikipedian interested in politics: '''''they''''' are ruining my job, they unite on the opinions different from the truth I know! It's a conspiration! I'm saying this because I've also passed through this stage. In fact it's hard to stay NPOV in Misplaced Pages especially when it goes about politics. Impossible. It's hard not to get offended when the point different from yours is established. | |||
| But what to do. In any conversation with Wikipedians you can do through it if you prove your statements with sourced facts. It differs from a usual talk on politics because it makes you to investigate sources in order to make a simple statement and it takes some work. But without facts and sources duscussion demises into a usual quarrel that would be buried in archives of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| The other point is the point "be bold" as stated in the guidelines. It's a halfway to show what's wrong. But often you also need to show how it would be better, what's the correct substitution. E.g. you've cited some points of the Vladimir Putin article you think aren't adequate. But as a matter of fact nobody is especially eager to fix that, because it takes time and work. So you need to do it yourself. Either to show your version on the talk page first if you want to discuss it, either just to edit the page itself. Simply deleting is not recommended. | |||
| And what's also very important -- to assume good faith. In fact I often don't follow this guideline and often it ends bad or worse than it could. | |||
| In regard to Vladimir Putin edits, well, that's routine. I hope you don't feel you've made a mistake bad that I've corrected your edit. You did good but not good enough. It's a normal routine job -- if you know how to improve it, do it. I hope I've made your statement more adequate, if you disagree, go improve my statement or discuss that piece at the talk page. | |||
| Feel encouraged to continue your contributions into Misplaced Pages wherever. | |||
| p.s. as to your assumption my contributions to Vladimir Putin article are obshchevstvennaya nagruzka -- go to ass with your obshchestvennaya nagruzka. No offenses, right? | |||
| ] (]) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:54, 11 December 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Muscovite99~enwiki, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Phgao 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
December 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Vladimir Putin. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Blake01 19:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Explain please
What was the purpose of this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=next&oldid=177037483 ?
But, I did not mean to revert all of your edits; only a couple - sorry about that. However, some edits were a violation of Neutral Point Of View.
-- Blake01 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose was addition of useful information -- it is still there now. The removed passages are tottally irrelevant and pointless(they are also there now, if you like them). Also see Discussion page on the article Muscovite99 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
Putin article
I very welcome your attempts in reaching NPOV. But please do not restore allegations coming from questionable sources. I'd truly regret if you get blocked per WP:3RR. Thanks. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Misplaced Pages articles about living persons, as you did to Vladimir Putin. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kulikovsky (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is to inform you that I reported your violation of 3RR rule at WP:AN/3RR. Kulikovsky (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
==
I'm sorry that I'm intruding into your conversation with Biophys, but I'm awful sure you are falling into a usual paranoia of a beginner Wikipedian interested in politics: they are ruining my job, they unite on the opinions different from the truth I know! It's a conspiration! I'm saying this because I've also passed through this stage. In fact it's hard to stay NPOV in Misplaced Pages especially when it goes about politics. Impossible. It's hard not to get offended when the point different from yours is established.
But what to do. In any conversation with Wikipedians you can do through it if you prove your statements with sourced facts. It differs from a usual talk on politics because it makes you to investigate sources in order to make a simple statement and it takes some work. But without facts and sources duscussion demises into a usual quarrel that would be buried in archives of Misplaced Pages.
The other point is the point "be bold" as stated in the guidelines. It's a halfway to show what's wrong. But often you also need to show how it would be better, what's the correct substitution. E.g. you've cited some points of the Vladimir Putin article you think aren't adequate. But as a matter of fact nobody is especially eager to fix that, because it takes time and work. So you need to do it yourself. Either to show your version on the talk page first if you want to discuss it, either just to edit the page itself. Simply deleting is not recommended.
And what's also very important -- to assume good faith. In fact I often don't follow this guideline and often it ends bad or worse than it could.
In regard to Vladimir Putin edits, well, that's routine. I hope you don't feel you've made a mistake bad that I've corrected your edit. You did good but not good enough. It's a normal routine job -- if you know how to improve it, do it. I hope I've made your statement more adequate, if you disagree, go improve my statement or discuss that piece at the talk page.
Feel encouraged to continue your contributions into Misplaced Pages wherever.
p.s. as to your assumption my contributions to Vladimir Putin article are obshchevstvennaya nagruzka -- go to ass with your obshchestvennaya nagruzka. No offenses, right?