This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flushout1999 (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 23 October 2015 (→October 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:17, 23 October 2015 by Flushout1999 (talk | contribs) (→October 2015)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Copyright violations
Per this comment, could you please fix your copyright violations on this and possibly other pages? My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would do it with pleasure, but it is pointless at this point. There is nothing left to be fixed, users in wikipedia simply delete others' edits which they dislike with the excuse of Copyvio. I learned the lesson well. I'll do the same with the others. Flushout1999 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring to keep your copyright violations - as you just did in this edit . This is your last warning. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I used quotations, as usual you did not notice. If you like make the complain and see what happens, who cares. You are actually the one who initiated edit warring with the most subtle excuses, as anyone can see it here Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow. I was the one creating and nurturing that page before your arrival. I requested The Harvest of Sorrow to be blocked so, hopefully, your WP:SNEAKY will come to an end. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you did not use quotations for the phrase I am talking about. This is your version. It includes the following phrase (without quotation mark!):
- Actually I used quotations, as usual you did not notice. If you like make the complain and see what happens, who cares. You are actually the one who initiated edit warring with the most subtle excuses, as anyone can see it here Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow. I was the one creating and nurturing that page before your arrival. I requested The Harvest of Sorrow to be blocked so, hopefully, your WP:SNEAKY will come to an end. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring to keep your copyright violations - as you just did in this edit . This is your last warning. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"The Harvest of Sorrow" had a clear moral: that if the older Soviet leaders were direct accomplices in an artificially contrived famine, and the younger leaders today still justify such procedure, then it followed that they might be willing to kill tens of millions of foreigners or suffer a loss of millions of their own subjects in a war.
This is practically the same text as in LA paper:
"The Harvest of Sorrow" has a clear moral: that if the older Soviet leaders today were direct accomplices in the artificially contrived famine of the 1930s, and the younger leaders still justify the procedure, then it follows that they might be willing to kill tens of millions of foreigners or suffer a loss of millions of their own subjects in a war
My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and of course you think is bad faith. I'm sorry I don't remember every single thing that I posted, just go ahead and go in a noticeboard, whatever. You are just political partisans, it is evident that your main purpose is just to omitt whatever is not according to your own personal point of view that all of this is pretty ridiculous. Why don't you show me you can write those thing in the article in my place in a better form? Go in The Harvest of Sorrow and write about the funding or about this Conquest's declaration with your own words! Show me that you don't have a problem with the fact itself! Show me that you are not a poltical partisan! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Your recent editing history at Denial of the Holodomor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I know perfectly what is a 3RR violation. My point it was to know if this source can be considered reliable or not, and therefore be cited in wikipedia articles or not. You have been very clear on that saying: "Stop edit warring. The content is sourced" and you made clear that because of this it cannot be deleted (here:). So I have now your confirmation that this particular one is a reliable source which I can use on other articles. Thanks -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, it does not make it WP:RS to be used in other articles. I've only confirmed that it's a WP:BIASED source. Being recognised as a biased source ≠ carte blanche to use the this source anywhere you choose to. The use of such sources is contingent on WP:TITLE, whether it is WP:DUE in other articles, and whether you are using it for the purposes of WP:POV-pushing. Judging on your WP:SPA editing patterns, what I'm seeing is a WP:POINTy agenda on your behalf. Be aware of the fact that it's clear that you're traversing the terrain of WP:ACDS articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes ok thanks for clarifying. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)