User talk:217.25.31.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Attention:

This IP address, 217.25.31.2, is registered to Uninet (Baku, Azerbaijan), and may be shared by multiple users. In the case of organizations using proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.

Hello there - and thanks for your comments at Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper. It's really comforting to know that there are people out there who actually read what I wrote and not just my name (which for many is apparently a reason in itself to disregard my ideas and call me names). I really appreciate your comment and thought you might want to create a permanent account here in Wikipedia. How about that? //Halibutt 18:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have get around to it sometime.
Tell me did you do something specific to piss of that group or do they simply somehow percive you as a threat? There seems to be series problem with that disscussion, entirely unrelated to the disscussed issue and based on And you are lynching Negroes sort of arguments (literally, and that was from the one more serious editor).
Belive me or not, many Russians are actually fairly friendly and nice people and I have to admit I me very suppriesed at the behaviour at that page.--217.25.31.2 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I know it, I have lots of Russian friends and even more Ukrainian friends... I also speak Russian and some basic Ukrainian, which really pisses some guys off here as I can actually check their sources :)
Of course I did much more than that to piss some of them off, particularly Irpen. In short, the guy used to be a really reasonable editor and made lots of great articles. Alas, when it comes to his views on the history of the USSR - and of Russia in general - he seems completely impregnated to any arguments - as can be seen in that discussion. Another fine example of what I am writing about was the article on Warsaw Uprising (1794), where he came in to add as much of some 19th century Russian prop as possible. You know, some Russian author claiming that the Holy Russia under the Romanovs was an invincible and holy land, it was always on the right side and if it ever lost a battle, it must've been by deceit, slaughter of innocents and so on. In short Irpen added some claims that the Russian soldiers who perished in that battle for the city centre were in fact unarmed (occupation forces unarmed, really, that was his claim) and that huge number of them were slaughtered in an Orthodox church during some ceremony by the angry Polish mob. After some cross-checking it turned out that the garrison was not that unarmed as it waged a two-days-long battle and was quite well-organized, that there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw at that time at all, that the angry Polish mob was primarily composed of regular units of the Polish army, and that the entire story is a complete rubbish.
Anyway, I'm on a verge of loosing my nerves in such chatter, so I try to limit my presence in Wikipedia lately, but at times it's simply impossible, as some of these guys tend to follow me from time to time... The situation is pretty much the same in a number of articles related to common Polish-Russian history: Lviv, Katyn massacre, History of Belarus, Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth, History of Poland, Polish contribution to World War II, Polish-Soviet war, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth... In pretty every of these (and many more, sadly), there was a group of dedicated editors who tried to defend the POV of the majority of the world - or to push their own, disguising it under a variety of names. In most cases they lost interest in the revert wars and discussions as soon as people started using sources in the talk page rather than personal remarks, so one might say that it's not that harmful. However, it usually takes a lot of time and efforts before they leave to some other article that is in dire need of improvement.
Of course, I'm by no means innocent here as I have my own views and I have often in the past crossed some lines. However, very rarely do I present myself as the sole defender of the truth. In this specific context the problem is with liberation of many other places that were not set free, but rather put under yet another occupation. Lvov is a fine example for me and I'd really love to see some better alternative to the L word, as the liberation of Lvov thingie is disputable, to say the least. However, for me both terms (liberation and occupation) depend solely on one's POV, while for some of these guys the earlier should stay at all cost. I'm not so sure any compromise there is possible, but we can always try... Anyway, thanks for your attempt at some cool-headed analysis of the problem. Although your mediation apparently failed, it was definitely appreciated - at least by yours truly.
On a side note: you might want to reply to my posts here at my talk page. This way I'll get a nifty orange notification of your reply every time I log in to wikipedia. Otherwise I'd have to drop in here from time to time which is not that easy when you consider the fact that I have thousands of talk pages on my watch list. //Halibutt 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edit to Ja Rule

Your recent edit to Ja Rule was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Azerbaijan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. Yanksox 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did in Web Design, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. -- lucasbfr talk 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The spam you added to January 12 and December 23

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Washington National Cathedral

Your recent edit to Washington National Cathedral (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to La Catedral, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- KOS | talk 08:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Malnutrition

Your recent edit to Malnutrition (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --—Khoikhoi 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --—Khoikhoi 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/7/User_talk%7E217.25.31.2.html"