User talk:130.166.33.54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 130.166.33.54, is registered to University of California Northridge and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses 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. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. 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; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

---

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

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.

School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You should create an account and continue with such good and nice edits as you did to the siege of Leningrad, which I find very useful Jim Furtado (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Leningrad

Keep and improve this version. Unfortunately this demand is contradictory. And the nature of Wikipedia is that we should all the time improve the articles, which means that they are going to be changed. As I have done to this article: I have taken your version, and splitted it. Also I have removed unreferenced or misreferenced claims, and I have removed unrelevant facts. Shortly: improved it.

Why are you so opposed about the split of the article? Although they are not yet there, there is going to be lot of information about the military forces conducting and defending the siege, more information about different military operations during the siege etc. so the length of the article increases considerably. That means the civilian impact part diminishes relatively. If the article becomes too long, fewer people will read it through, and fewer people will learn about the huge impact the siege had to the city and it's inhabitants. But by introducing a separate article for the civilian parts we will keep the article short enough that people will read it through and learn about it.

Read sources. Deletion of referenced facts = denial and vandalism. Done that. And found that in many cases the sources do not say what they are claimed to be said in the text in the article. In those cases I have corrected the article text according the text in the source.

As a side note, I'd like to point out about the referencing notion. It is customary that for sourcing the claim, the exact page number is given where the claim is verified. Not the pages which handle the siege of Leningrad. Or the whole book. That is one reason why I introduced Harvard notation for referencing, as it is easy to use for adding page references. As you have access to some sources I don't, would you please check your sources and add correct pages to the references?

Being a referenced fact is not the same as should the fact be in the article. Some referenced facts are not relevant or relevant enough to the article. For example how is the fact (referenced) that Finns started their mobilisation at June 17 relevant to the siege? Although we are not as constricted with space as those who are writing to the paper books, we should still consider how we can make the articles readable; otherwise no-one will read them and learn. That is why we have to make a decision about the criteria which facts are relevant to the article, with the issue in mind that all those facts which are more relevant than the one we are deciding to include to the article should be included as well.

Please be thoughful. (think about denial of the Holocaust, now think again) I have tried to be polite and thoughful. I don't understand what denial of Holocaust has to do with this article, could you enlighten me? We could make this article great, but we have to co-operate and communicate to achieve that. --Whiskey (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Leningrad - 3rd Opinion

A third opinion has been requested as a first step in dispute resolution. Please join the dicussion at Talk:Siege of Leningrad. The page has been semi-protected so that we can work together on a fix. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Siege of Leningrad has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. ——Ryan | t • c 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Please make note: Editors hve the right to remove messages from their talkpages once they have read it. Also please remain civil. Remember there is always the undo button on the far right of any edit found on the history subpage for an article. The history tab can be found on top. It will undo the effects of one particular edit. Also when providing diffs please link to the correct sections. Also make clear and non-ranting edit summaries. Note: annoying users like you have recently done will only make people even less agreeable. Discuss politely like how a student talks to a professor over a disagreement.Thanks!Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Siege of Leningrad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please resolve your differences on the article's talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Siege of Leningrad. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking by this dministrator is unfair. There was never a case of THREE-REVERT EDITS WITHIN 24 HOURS ON ONE PAGE in this article. This is just another example of WIKIPEDIA's LOW QUALITY in everything - information is low quality, biased and one-sided, editing is open to anyone without qualifications, rules are funny and contradicting, languages are mixed and messed up, layout leaves much to be desired, and some users simply departed form common sense and logic. Does anyone want to establish a level of quality here? It doesn't look so.130.166.33.54 (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked you because you have not made the slightest effort to discuss changes even though you were repeatedly invited/asked to do so. Neither is serially adding "Keep and improve. Deletion of referenced facts = denial and vandalism. Please be thoughful. Think about denial of the Holocaust, now think again" in edit summaries an attempt to find consensus. As you have once again reverted to an earlier version without discussion, you have once again been blocked. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the Digwuren decision: [1]. It states: "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision."

And it's enforcement:"Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans."

So could you please start acting more civil manner, and Please, could you please start discussing the sources and issues in talk pages. If we don't have a meaningful discussion, it is impossible to reach synthesis. --Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring at the Siege of Leningrad. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formal warnings

Effective immediately you are subject to the restriction. Please familiaise yourself with the terms of the restriction and abide by it. In particular, you must assume good faith in all your edits on topics concerning Eastern Europe. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, be warned that further edit-warring at the Siege of Leningrad article will result in further blocks of increasing duration. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]