| Revision as of 17:30, 24 October 2015 editMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,586 edits →Copyright violations← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:01, 3 November 2015 edit undoKingsindian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,374 edits →A tip about discussion: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <br /> — ] ] 14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <br /> — ] ] 14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> | ||
| == A tip about discussion == | |||
| You might also want to read the essay ]. Keep in mind that no matter how much you argue, you are not going to convince some people. The only way to get consensus in such cases is to state your point, once or twice, clearly and briefly. So that others can see and decide. If you spend too much time arguing with one person, others will just ]. I am myself guilty often of violating this insight, it is a very natural thing to do. ] ]] 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:01, 3 November 2015
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[REDACTED] 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)
- Flushout1999, please read WP:PLAGIARISM: specifically what is not plagiarism. Supplement your reading with WP:PARAPHRASE. What you have been engaging in is consistent WP:COPYVIO despite being warned several times against copyright violation in your very short editing 'career' on Misplaced Pages. What this speaks to is your intent as an editor... and certainly does not speak well of your contributions other than that of WP:NOTHERE. I would also suggest reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH. I am still assuming good faith on your behalf, but I suspect that you've not had enough time and experience to understand what the Misplaced Pages project is and what it is WP:NOT. In all honesty, the learning curve in being able to put aside our own personal perceptions and predispositions is steep and difficult. I'll offer you the same advice as I have many new editors, being that it's usually best to stay away from the deep end and learn by working on uncontroversial articles in desperate need of copyediting, citation verification: basically, the mundane parts of editing. Please understand that my advice isn't intended as condescension towards you or your potential abilities as an editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Flushout1999, "go and write yourself" is not the answer. This is your responsibility to follow all policies, such as copyright, WP:Consensus and others. If you do not, anyone can simply revert your edits. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 24 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[REDACTED] 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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
A tip about discussion
You might also want to read the essay WP:BLUDGEON. Keep in mind that no matter how much you argue, you are not going to convince some people. The only way to get consensus in such cases is to state your point, once or twice, clearly and briefly. So that others can see and decide. If you spend too much time arguing with one person, others will just WP:TLDR. I am myself guilty often of violating this insight, it is a very natural thing to do. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)