This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 26 February 2015 (General note: Unconstructive editing on Holodomor genocide question. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:58, 26 February 2015 by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) (General note: Unconstructive editing on Holodomor genocide question. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
Hello
Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
While i agree to having participated in an edit war as reported, the reasons given for the block are for something completely different. There is "Logging out to edit war". This is simply false, i have never, not once, logged out to edit wikipedia. I have, at times when i didn't have much time, made an edit without logging in first but that is a far cry from "logging out to edit war" which assumes malicious intent. I have also long stopped making edits before logging in first, that was at a time when i wasn't particularly involved with WP yet, the moment i started to get really involved i made sure to always log into my account first. Besides, the reported edit war that i admitted to was from my account only - i've never even edited that page before logging in first. I'm not sure where that "logging out to edit war" is supposed to come from. There is also "adding original research" which was not mentioned in the report and hence it is quite unclear what exactly that original research would be. There was a discussion on the talk page about OR, but the first issue about the german report was simply made up - every single statement was reliably attributed to the sources, and not synthesized or something. The second issue may or may not have been OR (the source stated "Wait. Did we say this was funny?" which i had put in as "implying they think it was funny"), but that seems pretty minor. Given that my intention here, as stated in my comments on the report, is to have the "D" part of "BRD" take place it seems that an editing block is out of place, given that it means that i cannot edit the talk page too. If you're concerned that i'll change the article, don't be, i'm fine with not changing any article for 31 hours - the problem is that the block means that i cannot engage in discussion on the talk page.
Accept reason:
Unblocking per agreement to refrain from edit-warring and Tiptoety's comment below. Yunshui 水 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you agree to cease all edit warring, I am willing to unblock you. Tiptoety 05:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly agree to cease edit warring, i'm not here to willingly edit war - frustration over long-term ongoing behaviour got the better of me in that instance that ended up being reported, i should have known better than to be led into a full-blown edit war. However, i would like to know what exactly was OR for being one of the reasons for the block.B01010100 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tiptoety hasn't edited for a few hours, but since you seem to have agreed to stop edit warring I'm unblocking on his behalf. Yunshui 水 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly agree to cease edit warring, i'm not here to willingly edit war - frustration over long-term ongoing behaviour got the better of me in that instance that ended up being reported, i should have known better than to be led into a full-blown edit war. However, i would like to know what exactly was OR for being one of the reasons for the block.B01010100 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- S/he might have ceased the edit warring but not the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Their first edit since the block was removed was to jump right into AN/I . And if anyone really believes that a genuine brand new account can just easily find obscure AN/I discussions from 5 years+ ago, which are listed under different, older, usernames, well... I got this wonderful investment opportunity where you convince your friends to join the wonderful investment opportunity... anyone wanna sign up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I provided relevant evidence that you have a long history of exactly the behaviour that is complained about in that ANI discussion. It's nothing more than putting things in context. Believe me, if this was just WP:BATTLEGROUND as you claim, i would have linked to a lot more. But i didn't, i stuck to evidence that is directly relevant to the discussion, which says enough. As to your continuing ill-founded attempts to discredit me (is shouting "sockpuppet!" at every occassion that doesn't present itself not enough anymore?) i'll just say that maybe you shouldn't project your own research limitations onto others - who may know how to use this thing called the internet.B01010100 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- But since you ask so nicely, i'll show you where the information can be found. Remember not much more than two weeks ago you reported LokiiT? Take a look at his statement there, the link to your previous username and case is there. So its your use of the tactic of provoking "disagreeable editors" in an effort to get them blocked/banned that ultimately led to unearthing the information that puts this entire thing in context. You've got to love the irony here.B01010100 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the story that you found the link at the WP:AE report (which did not concern you and it's not exactly clear how you would come across it) is a nudge more believable than the story you were originally telling, which was that you found it following a link from my contributions page or my block log . I guess that one fell apart when it was pointed out that no such link exists because I was never blocked in the first place. And really, veiled threats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you're right it wasn't from the block log, my mistake. I was researching along so many lines i misremembered what stuff i got where exactly. But what does it even matter how i got it, for all it matters i may have gotten it in a dream, it is relevant evidence. And what veiled threats are you talking about? If you mean my statement that i would've linked to more if my goal was WP:BATTLEGROUND as you were claiming, it's not a threat but a simple observation that pretty much sinks your claim.B01010100 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the story that you found the link at the WP:AE report (which did not concern you and it's not exactly clear how you would come across it) is a nudge more believable than the story you were originally telling, which was that you found it following a link from my contributions page or my block log . I guess that one fell apart when it was pointed out that no such link exists because I was never blocked in the first place. And really, veiled threats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, B01010100. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Third-party source needed
Please can you find a third-party source for your statement of Denis Krivosheev's opinion, which you added to at least four articles. For the purpose of the other statements attributed to the Amnesty International article, the Amnesty International article is a good source. However, as Krivosheev works for Amnesty International, the relevance/significance of his statement really ought to have a different (i.e. third-party) source.
Nobody (except possibly Krivosheev) believes that the Red Army should have allowed food convoys to German 6th Army when they were surrounded at Stalingrad - it was good that the Germans were starving to death, it made them surrender. That civilians in Stalingrad also went hungry was unfortunate; starving the civilians was not the purpose of surrounding German 6th Army - even under modern treaties it was not war crime.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's an official press release by Amnesty International quoting the director of the relevant section of Amnesty International, why would a third party source for relevance be required? Do you believe it irrelevant that in the press release by Amnesty International reporting on the blocking of food aid one of its directors is quoted as stating that it constitutes a war crime? You can disagree with whether it actually is one or not (that's why the statement is attributed as an opinion), but I don't see how it fails to be a relevant or significant aspect of the events.B01010100 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
February 2015
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Holodomor genocide question, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
The referenced content you deleted does, in fact, state that Belgium recognises Holodomor as 'genocide'. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)