User talk:Ttturbo: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Ttturbo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Arundhati bakshi 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom for Belorussia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Freedom for Belorussia article, but since this is the English Wikipedia, we cannot accept text in other languages. However, if this is an original article, perhaps you would like to translate it into English. You may also enjoy becoming a part of Wikipedia's effort to coordinate across different languages. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!

I have proposed the article for deletion since it appears to be unencyclopedic, and the name is just a slogan. Much as I support your cause, I don't feel this article should be on Wikipedia. Imarek 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't recreate deleted articles. If this is a known organization, please provide verifiable information. The main rule of wikipedia is described wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read other wikipedia rules as well. Wikipedia is not an arena for political struggle. `'mikka (t) 17:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly recommend not to edit other user pages. There are user talk pages for talk. `'mikka (t) 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some editing of the attacked article Red army crimes in Lithuania like the whole category Red army crimes articles is needed!!!!!

Ttturbo 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My English is not fluent enough, some my articles were marked by spelling, editing remarks, there is not enough of sources about the crimes so please help me to rescue this category!

• For help with this template, please post a comment on the template talk page with a {{reply to}} one or more of the previous editors.

What are real issues for help asking? Are they among the rules? Ttturbo 08:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Miranda -what does it mean - t1 U just added?

Ttturbo 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the help you need with editing? Respond here or on my Talk page. Jim Dunning | talk 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo, you need to follow the AfD process, so please leave comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_army_crimes_in_Lithuania instead of just removing the AfD tag. You may also want to review the WP:3RR policy or you risk being banned from WP and therefore unable to add your perspective to articles. Jim Dunning | talk 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to write an article on this subject it must conform to wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and neutrality, or be accepted by a community consensus. Your personal beliefs of notability and neutrality do not determine a consensus. If you wish to add this information to the relevant articles (Red_Army), you can do so as well. It needs to be properly sourced, notable, and neutral. Bassgoonist 19:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo, if there's any chance you are editing articles as 78.62.22.250, then you must be careful. Based on the pattern of edits other editors may construe you as using a Sock puppet for undesirable reasons (in this case to bolster your views on the Red army crimes in Lithuania article, and you may be banned. Also, after reviewing the article, I have to agree with Bassgoonist: you should focus on adding the information someplace more appropriate, like the Red Army atrocities article; it may be a needed addition there. If you still feel strongly about maintaining a separate article, then participate in the Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania discussion. Jim Dunning | talk 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

THAnks - I've done this.

Ttturbo 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Who will write the articles - Red army crimes in Afganistan, Red army crimes in Tbilisi, Red army crimes in Baku, Red army crimes in Karaganda, Red Army crimes in Praha (or Chechoslovakia), Red army crimes in Budapest( or Hungary), Red army crimes in Germany, Red army crimes in Ukraina, Red army crimes in Latvia, Red Army crimes in Estonia, Red army crimes in Finland, Red army crimes in Chechnia, Red army crimes in Poland, (GRU crimes? Category Red army crimes is needed. {{helpme}}

Ttturbo 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Red army crimes in Belorussia pan Mikalaj?

Ttturbo 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the first article on crimes in a country is up for AFD, and will be closed as delete, do you think that the crimes of the Red army in each country are notable. I'll leave this helpme open, so another user can give input if they want. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some slavians not discussing iteresting for the war history and justice specialists theme here, started deleting proposals immediately and urgent with absurd - the gun is not guilty, there was no Red Army crimes before WWII and so on. Do U call such activity to be democratic ( when slavians -one hiding under nickname like Finnish -m started coordinated attack and western users have no understanding what is going on). Please advertise this situation for the all users. Let decision will be not slavic urgent but real democratic.

Ttturbo 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Take this discussion to the article's talk page. This doesn't require a help me. This may be a content dispute. Miranda 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I and others have already explained to you what this may be. Stop abusing the helpme function, or this page may be protected. Miranda 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say this the first time. You were clearly abusing the helpme function and comments like this and this can get you blocked for disruption. In order to make a redirect, look at the instructions on this page: WP:REDIRECT. Miranda 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. I presented not understanding how to redirect in a help desk. This was one of the reasons I've asked for help but u threaten and accuse me again. Better fight against military crimes.

it was written -

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {-{helpme}-} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Ttturbo 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you make threats like you did here, you will be blocked from editing. Miranda 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not thread! I've explained - I've left comment asking for HELP for redirection but You deleted this help asking and later even not appologise. U can try to ban me -It's a honour to be blocked when fighting against the murders of my grandmother - against red bandits and their supporters!!! U've disrupted my activity!

Ttturbo 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I understand that you are angry, but I strongly suggest you to read carefully the policy Wikipedia:Civility, otherwise you will have serious troubles editing wikipedia. `'Miikka 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I have copied your comments and the text you commented on in the talk page of that individual page. The way you had commented (no indents, a comment on virtually everything, made the actual debate and voting impossible to follow. You are supposed to vote and comment on that vote.

I agree with the warning about 3RR. I have to warn you too that legal threats, as you have already expressed twice, I agree, stll playfully, (eg here), can lead to blocks and a ban as well. The only reason why you haven't been yet, is perhaps that everybody thinks you are a newcomer without any experience about NPOV. Actually, I saw that you have been around for more than a year. --Pan Gerwazy 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent been here for the year. I feel like real newcomer to be. Situation when there is no discussion here - near the article and everything shouting about deleting is untolerable - o tempora o mores!

Ttturbo 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and assume good faith, especially since you expressed your frustration as being a newcomer, and will try to offer some help. There is discussion - it takes place on the AfD itself (by the way, there's nothing wrong with being a newcomer, and not understanding abbreviations and other shortcuts used by many - you're always free to ask or look it up. In particular, AfD stands for "Article(s) for Deletion"). You're more than welcome to participate in that discussion - this usually means you're adding a single entry stating your position and explaining it; it may also mean that you respond to other people's entries. The admin who will close this discussion will certainly take your vote, as well as your reasoning, into account. You can also propose ways to address concerns of other users (such as "if you think this article violated WP:NPOV, let's add these particular things to balance it"). IgorSF 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

However, there are other things which should not be done, no matter how strongly you feel. They include being uncivil, attacking others, and violating WP:NPOV. The latter applies to all articles, even ones that deal with issues you personally believe are hard to make neutral, such as the various alleged crimes of the Red Army. I would specifically ask you to refrain from making personal attacks on other users who may not agree with your position; for one, disagreeing with you does not make one automatically a member of Red Army and personally responsible for the above alleged crimes; also, making such attacks is very likely to get you blocked (this is a warning, not a threat - Wikipedia rules discourage admins to block users with whom they are in dispute, so if you are blocked, it would be by a completely neutral admin who simply notices personal attacks). In general, if you stick to discussing subject matter and not other users, your contribution will be welcome by all. IgorSF 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I was under personal attack by some users - my comments were deleted from debate leaving wery little possibility to find out them. Second, Mikkalaj is trying to delete all the articles from category -Red army crimes leaving no comment!. This is vandalism. Ttturbo 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of personal attack against you; the sole example you cite wasn't anything like an attack at all. If your comments were deleted, or moved to an inaccessible place, I'd see your reasoning; but they were moved to the talk page of the article (which, I would think, even new users know how to access). As for the other comment, placing an article under WP:AfD does not qualify as vandalism - all that does is allowing a user to express his concern that the article is not notable, or does not belong in Wikipedia for some other reason, and allows the community to discuss this. Any article could be placed under AfD by any user, and this cannot be classied as vandalism unless that user would be acting in bad faith. If someone would blank your articles, or actually delete them, that would be vandalism, but to my knowledge this isn't happening. The articles will only be deleted if, in the opinion of the closing admin, there is community concensus that they do not belong here. This means that the actions of any single user cannot effect deletion on their own - there must be consensus. IgorSF 09:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone threatens You to start speedy deleting process of all my articles pan Gerwaz and someone places sign delete miiikkalai on all my articles - not only from Red army category - this isn ot personal attask -this is total attack - operation of some kind. If u ask for help and this asking is removed threatening and jeering -this is not personal attack but part of total attack. If someone threatens U accusing making at the same moment attacks against the others -this is real personal attack. If You are blocked at the same moment on the help desk - this is not personal attack - only part of wide atack. Ttturbo 09:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

I responded on my talk page to your comments there. You might want to slow down here and address the existing Articles for Deletion discussions on your other "Red army crimes in..." before creating any more. I suspect they will all have the same concerns and suffer the same fate, whatever that may be, as they all appear to have the same basic structure and problems. DMacks 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Every article has the same structure - introduction, body and conclusions. But different stories were told. The concern is really the same to describe, to discuss, to present, and to persecute the crimes and their supporters. All those articles attracts the same users who want to delete such information - bielorussian Mikalaj Miikkaetc.

Ttturbo 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal Attacks

I suppose that Miranda started personal attack on me removing my asking for help abouut redirection and editing some times and any kind of arguments couldn't help - she teased and jeered at me threatening. I suppose that Jersey Devil supports Red army fans and Red army crimes hiders attack against my articles. Look below:

Ttturbo 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this talk page and this afd. I ask that you please review our policy of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Comments such as "It's a honour to be blocked when fighting against the murders of my grandmother" [1] and other comments regarding the good faith of other users [2] are completely unacceptable. Furthermore, afds are for discussing the article to which it pertains and not for making attacks on the character or motivations of other users. I kindly ask that you refrain from making such comments on that afd and on this talk page. Further violations will result in a 24 hour block. I suggest that you avoid users with whom you are currently in conflict with or perhaps take a break from wikipedia for a short while for the situation to cool down. I hope you understand the seriousness of this warning and refrain from such conduct. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 08:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some group is jeering at my articles, destroing my job, threatening me, moving my comments and must stay calm like sleeping judge?! i suppose the must look at WP:CIVIL. They are trying to hide war crimes containing 100 000 000 victims and they are neutral but not me. Please, explain this logic. Ttturbo 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours

(ATTENTION - this page was hacked and some foolishment process is going on systematically changing administrators name Jersey Devil to user's - Jim Dunning, hiding the explanation - justification, why I was blocked. Ttturbo 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Jersey Devil 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I should add that if this talk page is continued to be used for these purposes, I will fully protect it for the duration of the block. Good day.--Jersey Devil 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ttturbo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock. — Yamla 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Being mathematician I like different rules and strong logic. I would like to know more about rules. For example I've tried to decide which rules defines talking on this page. Am I right saying that everything is possible except forbidden - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPAetc?. In the other wiki I've seen this page for user behavior discussing- describing but here is the other usage - u can talk and have dispute. Am I right or not? I think YES. I've started in wiki very difficult problem - military crimes starting from the best known for me RED ARMY CRIMES. I'm really newcomer and need some time to understand mechanisms of control and arguing. So I've created the article about Red army crimes in Lithuania - we suffered personaly -our granma was murdered in 1945. Some belorussian (usually kind hearted people) in military form having very strange understanding about military crimes (he said the gun and government are responsible but not soldier} haven't left any coment by this article but started to mark for deletion my articles giving no any explanation - even I DON'T LIKE THIS and THIS. Thanks God some man from USA helped me talking - "stand firm fighting against criminal war elements and go to discuss to Articlefordeletetion page". First I found the voting proposal of this man in the first position -delete my article and tried to explain him why there some solders often share responsibility for crimes together with politicians. The answer was not in ADF debate artical but here. He explained me not to try to win debate against military crimes but warned me for looking WP:CIVIL saying that problems are waiting for me. So my QUESTION is - do such behaver is legitimate according to WIKI rules -the same WP:CIVIL or not? Is it polite and CIVIL giving not any explanations start to mark for deletion {even] stubed articles started to create an hour ago?

My English is not fluent and I haven't understanding how to make redirections of articles, so I've asked for some help making {-{help}-} sign here and leaving the text in help board plus asking for editing help. Soon one girl started deletings of my help sign, not helping me and not explaining but warnining and warning about bans. How could I obtaine help? Yesterday I've obtained strong editing and spelling correction help from desk but today when righting three new articles -not. So what is a way for editing help obtaining (about instructions there was some explanation) and was that girl right deleting my help sign repeatedly ?

The third confusing situation appeared when debating the Adf article (I've was lucky to find in the rules that adf is not only vote but debate where everyone explains it's position. The voters for deleting don't left any explanations by the article discussion, but started imediately deleting process, so I left contrastatements by their sentences (some users supported me). But soon I was accused in making some false references, all my contra statements against millitary crimes were named to be "mess" and were deleted and dissappeared in not understandable for me direction. After some stress when trying to understand what does it mean mv, Adf, tlk, I've found my coments moved to Adf talk page and I made their copies into my own pages, becouse I was terrified about my contrastatements dissappearance and started protest against such behavior (law evaluated) - editing war started. Soon one user made link to my comments and it was better than no link on this page but only understandable abreviations. So my question is - are there allowed such sleng- abreviations usage which made for me - newcomer stress and by which law?Then I explained how I understand total marking for deleting of all my articles about Red army crimes and UNunderstandable transporting of my contrastatements from voting.

Then I've asked for some mediation willing that this will help to find truth and understanding but I was blocked for right reading devil's number 31 hour.

Then I explained how I understand total marking for deleting of all my articles about Red army crimes and understandable transporting of my contrastatements from voting. I'm sorry but possibly You haven't imformation about this situation and made some decision not in the profit of fighters against war crimes. I'm catholic and such name - devil frightens me and insults little, so I would go to pray for souls - even those who committed military crimes asking God to stop violent rude behavior in the world. Thanks for wishing to have a good day.

Ttturbo 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tttburo, thank you for a fuller explanation of your perspective. Let me respond to some of your concerns and explain what is happening:

• No one on Wikipedia is opposed to you adding information about the Red Army. No one is opposed to you participating in Wikipedia because you are Lithuanian or because of your beliefs, opinions or personal experiences. It appears you are confusing enforcement of Wikipedia policies and editorial suggestions with personal bias against you and your point of view.
• Every editor has acted based on the rules and policies of Wikipedia. No actions have been taken against you personally. Every action (including the AfD) has been taken with the goal of improving Wikipedia and your experience here—

• The AfD process was not directed at you personally or at the topic; it was focused on the format of your article, not you. As many editors pointed out to you, there are more appropriate locations for the material you want to include in Wikipedia.
• When the {{helpme}} tag was removed from your Talk page, the responding editor was following Wikipedia rules: she/he had responded to your request (although you may not have been satisfied), and was removing your signal. This is similar to an airliner passenger pressing the signal that alerts a flight attendant that he/she needs assistance; when the flight attendant arrives, he/she turns off the signal so other attendants don't get confused.

• It is clear that there are some misunderstandings with everyone involved due to your unfamiliarity with English. That is not unusual in a global community like Wikipedia, but many editors have also taken that into consideration in their communications with you. Fortunately, you have recently factored that into your Wikipedia experience as well.
• Do not take the 31-hour block personally. It is not punishment. It gives you (and others) a chance to step away from the dispute and cool off. Please take this opportunity to review in detail the applicable Wikipedia policies, especially Assume Good Faith, Maintaining a Neutral Point of View, and Starting Articles. Also, since the events you wish to contribute material about hold such a personal significance for you, you may want to read Avoiding Conflicts of Interest.
• The main problem with the article you started is that it is primarily a list of events that will have more value if they are merged into other, existing articles (review the section about "Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV"). Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, so that is one reason it was nominated for deletion. No one is against including the information about those events in Wikipedia, but it must be presented in a balanced format, not as a list.

Tttburbo, in closing, we all hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia because your perspectives are valuable. Some of the confusion and misunderstandings have resulted from your lack of familiarity with how to edit. I notice you do not use Edit Summaries; you should start using them as this practice will help others better understand the reasons for your edits. Also, when communicating with other editors on Talk pages, follow the guidelines, especially for formatting.

I hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to ask me for help anytime (try to avoid using the Help Desk for now on unless you have a new topic). (By the way, the username Jersey Devil refers to an American hockey team, not Satan).
Jim Dunning | talk 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more ideas: you may be interested in getting involved in these WP Projects— WikiProject Lithuania (they have a specific effort to expand an article on Vilnius); WikiProject Military history (this would cover the Red Army); and WikiProject Russian History.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Ttturbo 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! The bottom content of this page was changed recently in such a way, that it is impossible to see in it's history list of true users and their names who have written on my user talk page. For example, yesterday I've seen the signature of administrator Jersey Devil, who blocked me fro 31 hour giving advice, that wikipedia is not a collection of articles containing lists, but today I've found only John's Dunning signature instead the Jersey Devil's, who changed my text of article Red army crimes in Lithuania into the shape of facts list. Plus, it was explained for me that administrators name took origin from some ice hockey team names. This seems to be foolishment making hints about hacking! Ttturbo 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Ttturbo 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help desk is closed for me. Who made this? Ttturbo 19:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You added {{helpme}} What do you need help with? GDonato (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, TTTurbo... I hope you aren't offended by my attempt to change your article into colloquial English. You speak English better than I speak Lithuanian. Keep fighting for your articles. SAVE what you have written, as protection if your article is deleted. Best wishes. 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

>>What is Your opinion about Red Army crimes category and articles about military (comunistic or not) massacres? Where are You from?<<

I think it's a valid category. I think it is important to have published authority for citations, such as the Lithuanian History book (suggestion-- have title in original Lithuanian with English translation in [brackets]. It's very important to mention if the Soviet or Russian government later acknowledged a massacre after denial, such as with Katyn Forest. Massacres often go unreported for a long time, as with the My Lai massacre by American soldiers against Vietnamese civilians in 1968. As to where I'm from? Harlan, Kentucky, USA. Even in Kentucky, I had friends whose parents had emigrated from the USSR, including a doctor from the Ukraine. Don't let the deletion crowd upset you, but do protect your work by saving it. Mandsford 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiPage containing false difficult detectable changes

A tag has been placed on WikiPage containing false difficult detectable changes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the bottom content

I changed the bottom content of your page simply by adding a number of explanations and suggestions about the Red Army article; there was no "hacking" or magic involved. It is not "impossible to see in it's history list of true users and their names" who have written on your talk page (as you stated). Just click on the History tab at the top of this Talk page and you will see a detailed listing of every change made to this page, including the name of the editor making the change. The reason Jersey Devil's name is no longer last is that the material I added is now below his/her name, and my name now is at the end of my contribution. Also, there really is an American ice hockey team named the New Jersey Devils; although I can only speculate why Jersey Devil selected this username, it likely has nothing to do with "foolishment making hints about hacking!" or the devil. Ironically, the Featured Article for WP yesterday was on that hockey team. By the way, it was I, not Jersey Devil who reformatted the article. Please, please review the section on Talk page formatting so you can understand the structure of article and user Talk pages.

I really wish you would take my and other editors' suggestions to heart. It sounds like you have some valuable information to contribute to WP, but your conviction that WP communists are working to suppress it and your resulting disruptive and abusive behavior is seriously hurting your opportunity to do so. Please take Mandsford's advice to not let "the deletion crowd upset you." Although there is no "deletion crowd" per se, your extreme and abusive reactions to other editors' actions and communications is making it difficult for many to take you seriously. Please focus on calm discussions and making your communications clearer by better formatting. Personal attacks against every editor who happens to disagree with you only hurts your position.

Finally, Wikipedia is not for everyone. Every community has its rules and processes. Many people find WP's policies of NPOV, Reliable Sources and No Original Research too restrictive and look elsewhere for a suitable forum. Before moving forward you should consider what WP is not.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust for this - there are two possiblilities:

1. After difficult detectable hacking of this page becouse of political reasons (I've wrote some category - Red Army crimes articles) there was used user's John's Dunning name

2. Together with difficult detectable hacking of this page becouse of political reasons (I've wrote some category - Red Army crimes articles) John Dunning participates in illegal criminal foolishment process usefull for Red Army crimes hiders.

Ttturbo 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG! I give up! (Yep, I'm a secret member of the Red Army living in the eastern United States (but not in New Jersey).)

I wish you luck, Ttturbo, truly I do, but I'm moving on (and my name is Jim, not John).
Jim Dunning | talk 07:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Could You imagine what is seeable for me when I looking at this page and for You? Who knows who is hacking, writting and foolishing me and others? God perhaps. First, there appeared some changes of my article about Red army crimes in Lithuania by Jim Dunning making from this a list of facts, than administrator jersey devil accused me making articles in the list shape (this is not encyclopedical style according him) and later some Jim Dunnung modificated Jersey Devils' answer changing his signature by Jim's confirming that wikipedia is not a collection of lists? Stop foolishment. Edit of this chapter doesn't work -only editing of the whole article - one more trick to hide criminal activity hiding Red army crimes? (U can create new story why this happened).Ttturbo 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

OK, this is my last comment on this - I can't tell if the subject is nonsense or not because it was impossible to understand the article. Look at this page, No.2 on the page - look at what it says "(Articles can be deleted if they consist of) content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". That is why your article was deleted. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hacking

Tturbo, I see your comment on my talk-page, but do not understand it.

I have read through the whole of your talk-page, and I understand the depth of your feelings about alleged crimes by Red Army personnel. I also understand that you are Lithuanian (also a Professor) and do not have the command of the English language that a native speaker has.

You seem to be attempting to use wikipedia as a vehicle for your personal beliefs. Whether these beliefs are true or not is not relevant; this is an encyclopedia which accepts edits from anyone, if they are of encyclopedic value. It is not possible to hack this site, as you appear to suppose, as all edits are freely available for inspection. If you believe that a particular edit has not come from the editor it appears to have come from, you simply ask him on his talk page.

You must recognise that deletion by an admin of inappropriate articles, reverting inappropriate edits, and adding comments to your talk page is not vandalism, it is how wikipedia works.

And, for the record, I am an English Doctor who has never been to Russia and never spoken to a Russian, either in the Red Army or not.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning - Please remain civil

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Accusing other editors of collaborating in war crimes because they believe an article should be deleted is insulting and uncivil. Please do not make such accusations again. -- Kesh 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your position and opinion. I would like first to explain how I understand situation. All we are responsible to the GOD and the law. Computer crime like the other crimes (for example colaboration, holocost denying) are persecuted by the law too. If someone making no any statement in discussion page marks for deleting lots of articles describing Red army crimes in different countries accusing only in NPOW - he colaborates, and according to the law on colaborating and computer crimes could be persecuted! I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without commited crime analysis , then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side! I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POW.

Please, tell me where I was not constructive enough when discussing the general article Red Army crimes (hacking is possible!), but look at the other men who insulted me, too. You say - Accusing other editors of collaborating in war crimes because they believe an article should be deleted is insulting and uncivil. I've made when discussing general Red Army crimes only general statement, remembering act according to the law - colaboration is persecuted! This is my right, but judges makes decisions of guilty, not me. And this is not the game in the sandy box but some kind of struggle against war crimes, and how to stay neutral speaking about them?. In democratic stuctures and countries wide debates before the voting are welcomed, but I've got only five days for writting real thesis on Red army crimes under strong attack! I understand that I've lost, becouse very few people helped me, but not the others, who not all the time were constructive enough. I've suffered real hacking insulting attack too and was blocked for 31 hour. My right asking for edditing help was restricted too. I do not agree with some arguments, but there is no time to seak for justice in small disruptions. This theme is important becouse of EU comissions are going to discuss crimes of comunism again. Ttturbo 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)