User talk:Ttturbo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:38, 8 July 2007

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ttturbo 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

THAnks - I've done this.

Ttturbo 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about Red army crimes in Belorussia pan Mikalaj?

Ttturbo 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This section was hacked at the time moment between 29 and 30 of June

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)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Ttturbo 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ttturbo 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Honourable proffesor Anthony.bradbury. Unfortunately I had no enough practice of English for five years, but I'm going to improve it, I believe. My personal beliefs are not very important for wikipedia, but EU comission is going to discuss nontheoretical comunism crimes againt, so it is the time to tough those questions more proffesionally, than it was before. I see, Your experience about hacking of any sites or wikipedia is not great enough, becouse Your proffesion is humanistic, but not technical. It is possible to hack wiki even very strong (like having ax not sculpel) - a week ago I obtained such proposal, but my answer was not. Now I suffered myself some tricks of such kind but was not able to describe this proffesionaly, and trust me - this page is possibly hacked again - I can't edit single articles, only the whole article. It is possible to edit pages leaving no trace, and under such attack You are not sure You see the same texts as Your friend or opponent does. This is becouse of complex machinery of all the world web net of servers, rooters, switches - underground world where some specialist feel themselves like deep water fishes. I trust lots of administrators tries to work according to the system of rules, but sometimes it is not easy to stay right. Russian culture full of emotions and beuty is impressive, but there are lots of different sides of this phenomena and russians like to say it is not understandable by the brains. Red army I know the best from the all armies, I've got the different experiences from soviet school and propoganda, my aunt, BBC and even from red army officers, so I've tried to change little situation in wikipedia, but I'm loosing cause I've got only five days for real thesis of history, and only few people supports me. This very profesional hacker attack having clever psychological background is a great phenomena of working XXI century FANTOM.Ttturbo 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Kesh, for your position and opinion on the hacked page. 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 please act according to the law - colaboration is persecuted! This is my right (according to constitution), but judges makes decisions of guilty, not me. I've placed lots of constructive answers to opponents not accusing them. 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. I suppose your warning not constructive enough (but in some kind usefull) becouse discussing mass crimes everyone needs strong position and possibility to express contrastatements to presented ones.Ttturbo 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but hacking is not possible on this page. A Wiki, by definition and by the construction of its software, can be changed by anyone but cannot be changed without this being obvious. There is no point in your pursuit of this argument, because you are wrong. As it happens, while I am a Medical Practitioner I have a very extensive technical background as well. You must learn to distinguish between argument and personal attack - your 31 hour block was earned by you failure to do this. You clearly hold very strong opinions, which I respect, but so do other editors and wikipedia does not make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. Articles which emphasize a point of view, no matter what the point of view is, are usually deleted. It may possibly be that that our encyclopedia is not the right medium for you to make your points in.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, theoretically every world network computer could be hacked if someone breaks security codes. The best examples of this - Pentagon computers network repeatedly attacks or recently (april 24 - may 18) the ESTONIAN governmental and not governmental sites. Let specialists decide! I trust Your technical experience about medical equipment is great, but computer networks has their own specific (pingings, tracings...). I suppose, that I'm not for brown nazzi and not for red fighters - I'm for the justice, human rights, democracy and for THE BEATLES. Thanks for Your attention to my story, but this is not the time to discuss how and why I can't obtaine editing help but was even threatened for doing this. I'm the great supporter of EU politics after my first visit to EU parliament twenty years ago.Ttturbo 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hacking 2.0 Cases: Wikipedia and MySpace

Regarding the two specific Web 2.0 cases discussed in the report, the methods used involved spam and phishing. Firstly here is the Wikipedia case:

"This scam was detected and published by Sophos in early November 2006. Taking advantage of the fact that Wikipedia allows anyone to create and modify articles, hackers uploaded an article to the German edition of Wikipedia (de.wikipedia.org) including a link to a fix for a supposedly new version of the Blaster worm. However, the "fix" was actually a piece of malicious code. Sophos discovered the scam by intercepting spam messages directing recipients to the Wikipedia article with the malicious code.

Alerted to the problem on their site, Wikipedia immediately fixed the page with the malicious link. However, according to Sophos, the previous version of the page was still present in the archive and continued to point to malicious code. This allowed the hackers to continue to send spam pointing to the archived page on Wikipedia, and infect victims' computers. Wikipedia later confirmed that it had permanently erased the archived version of the page." Ttturbo 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not "hacking". As explained, it was a scam that convinced people to click on a link that infected their computer. There was no hack of Wikipedia, as anyone can add a link to any article. Also, I have no idea what you mean by my "comment and opinion on the hacked page." My only comment was to warn you about making accusations of criminal behavior by other editors, which you have continued to do. -- Kesh 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not to be "the real hacking" but I have some doubts - what does it means fixed and HOWEVER in this case. I mean, that I can't normaly edit this page using chapter edit possibility - only of the whole page and I mean that content of this page was changed hardly detectably -not seen using the history of page (I've stressed this above). My warning was the general statement about possibility of crime commitents colaboration and responsibility for this. Thanks.

Ttturbo 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help asking

{{helpme}} I need help editing Red Army crimes category articles and not only editing. (I'm afraid that the last user:Miranda's helpme asking disruptive breaking looks like repeated personal attack against me - Miranda haven't made any editing nor discussion about the language problems of Red army crimes article ) Ttturbo 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am removing this helpme, because your question has already been answered. Please assume good faith. Miranda 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda still continues personal attack - One of the accusations in the voting debate for deleting was poor language, and Miranda says on the helping board -don't edit the article becouse it is for deleting. So, Miranda continues disruptive personal attack against me - the author of category Red Army crimes articles.

I have never made such an attack, I have never made a vote on the Red Army article. Please read WP:NPA. Miranda 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda repeatedly bloks HELPME asking for editing - one of the deleting reasons of my article is poor language. So, she continues sharp personal disruptive attack on me like a real wikipedia prosecutor and judge. I have never stressed, that Miranda voted on the Red Army article. I said recently - she is telling not truth even on the Help desk stoping improvement of the artisles about the Red Army crimes. Think and read WP:NPA. Ttturbo 10:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please re-state your question here with some additional detail and then repost the helpme template? We are having difficulty understanding what you are asking. Thanks! --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During voting debate about the article Red Army crimes it was stressed

that it is written in poor English (I'm lithuanianian). I would like to ask help for me - style editting and possible spelling checking - my word checker doesn't works. If someone will add some bew detailes amd sources - this will be great. Ttturbo 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Requested Help -Hello? Although Wikipedia does not have a bulit in spell checker to correct spelling. I'm afraid not. But you could use google for any spelling corrections you may need. That's what I use and it works great for me. I hope that answers all your questions. Happy editing. King

Lopez ^Contribs 09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I use this sometimes too. Thanks, but the fluent language needs more than spell checking.Ttturbo 09:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

An Administrative Noticeboard/Incidents post concerning your behavior has been reported here. Miranda 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your repeatedly disruptive systematic activities not telling the truth and making different accusations were reported to administrator who studied some aspects of situation when I created [[category Read Army Crimes articles.

Ttturbo 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On war crimes etc

I'm going to ask you to tone down your rhetoric in AfD discussions. Arguing that an article should not be kept in its current state is not a war crime, and neither should it be called one. If you have a point to make, please make it calmly and without using emotive terms. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice, but It depends. If someone marks immediately all the articles of Red army crimes categore to be deleted without any discussion, this is very antidemocratic. If some crowd shouts - poor language - delete and the other one don't allow to ask for help attacking systematically and repeatedly accusing me in disruption (of Red Army authorithy?) and all the crowd is shouting again this is great performance. But if someone edited my articles befor attack and transported sources - this is small but nice fought against the war crimes!Ttturbo 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're unblocked, it makes sense to continue this discussion. My point is that there is a considerable difference between saying that a particular page should be deleted and committing a war crime. Marking pages for deletion mightn't be democratic, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of WikiPage suffering computer hacking

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WikiPage suffering computer hacking, by Miranda (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WikiPage suffering computer hacking provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WikiPage suffering computer hacking, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate WikiPage suffering computer hacking itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you until we sort out the giant mess you've created. Given that your contributions seem to consist almost entirely of pushing your highly original POV in our direction, I'm not going to unblock until you promise to cease such behaviour in future. While you're at it, you could also desist from the numerous personal attacks on your fellow contributors. We are not just dots in a computer screen. You've been blocked elsewhere for identical behaviour. Please rethink what you are doing here. You may reply here, as you are not blocked from your talk page. Moreschi ^Talk 12:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer

1. I had only five days to debate about category Red Army crimes - they all like the other are marked for deletion. Now I haven't even such possibility. 2. I don't understand - "giant mess you've created". I've created category Red army crimes articles about 100 million victims of communism in different countries (my grandmother shooted down in March 1945). EU comission is going to discuss this soon, but situation in wiki is poor! The article creation is a process like editing the book, or magazine. It needs lots of improovments. Some mistakes I/ve made becouse I haven't enough of experience -I'm a new commer.- returned after the year. 2. I was accused by pushing of my 'highly original POV in our direction' (What does it mean our?). Lots of humanistic educated people understand that all the crimes must be described, discussed and evaluated to give lessons of history for all the armys to prevent them. This is not only my position but of millions. I've explained to some Belorussian Mikalaj - if I don't present below the articles Red Army crimes (perhaps deleted recently not waiting for 5 days - I can't see it on the monitor) category 'military history of Soviet union' full of victories against nazzi, heroes, economical changes etc. without crimes commited (every army commites crimes), this means that there is no context and without of this the article is NPOW. But if You don't study this - You are in the other side. I suppose , I was in possition not being brown nazzi or red fighter, so among the middle limits of neutrality. I feel to be some kind of slandering wictim - perhaps You haven't time to investigate all THE CASE. I promise in the future to be as neutral as possible when speaking about 100 million victims of the war - the most horrible events of recent history. Please, evaluate some antidemocratic practise, when all the articles in creation process were marked to be deleted without any discussion and voting for deleting immediately was started. 3. I've suffered some personal (user:Miranda) and even collective attacks, helped by anonimuosle referents but there was no time to answer them or ask for justice becouse of five days. This made me little angry. I agree there was made some characteristics of persons when defending myself but I was punished for 31 hour. I think it was not necesarily, but now I've got some experience. 4. I do not suppose users and administrators to be dots on the screen. I've met part of kind and polite people here! I was not blocked elswhere for "such behavior". I suffered some provocations and false accusations - even in curse I've never wiki done. 5. I've just following general (strong) humanistic position of EU here, but it is not easy to stay calm in such a jungle. Thanks for possibility to talk. Ttturbo 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm going to try and explain this to again. First of all... you need to take a deep breath and calm down. Personal attacks and name calling isn't going to work. Second, the correct article to include your information on the actions of the Soviet Union after WW2 is Lithuanian SSR. The editor that you appear to be in dispute with isn't even editing that article. Renata, a Lithuanian who is also an admin here does however appear to be keeping an eye on that article. What you do is create a thread on the talk page and propose that the small section dealing with the actions of the Red Army following WW2 be expanded. Once you've done that other editors can comment and add to that proposed section. Then, once you have drafted a version that you can agree on then you add it to the article. Trust me, I got started here in much the same way as I just described so I know what works and what doesn't. As much as I sympathize with those who were treated unfairly and very cruel during the war and afterwards Wikipedia just isn't the place to let off steam and act agressively. It just doesn't work that way. Just some friendly advice on how NOT to get blocked for rampant disruption and incivility. I hope you will think about this while you are blocked. MartinDK 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opinion. I suffered some provocations, personal jeering and insulting personal, collective attack (antidemocratic practice) by slavian, who immediately've started voting for deletion of all category Red Army crimes articles. I was accused then, blocked twice, my articles were deleted not waiting five days - this is very antidemocratic and now I must wait and guess -what does it mean blocked not neccesarally for indefinite - 50 years or 100. I like and use so called "top down" methodology in solving those historical problems. This means, that first the general backbone of the problem must be created starting on Military crimes by different Armys, including Red army too. Then must be discussed clasification of those crimes (war, peace time, against civil and POW, even against nature), responsibility (sharing with comunist party, government, other repressive structures) and persecution, then reasons of such crimes and finally periods and history of such crimes in different countries including even Russia starting from the end of IWW and Russian civil war - 15 million victims) and ending by Moscow august coup in 1991 when some civilians were killed in Moscow). I described this in the general article, but it was deleted yesterday by some admin Nick, breaking down all discussion and improvements - this is very antidemocratic too!

Methodology You proposed is suitable only for some schoolgirl starting history studies. But situation in wikipedia about red army crimes is awfull and even still contraversive. Your uderstanding of the problem and administrators supoposed to be not editors and helpers, but roolers and controlers doesn't fits to understanding of basic and general human rights, information spreading freedom and democracy. Your understanding and experience about the history as science is not adequate too - crimes by Red army were commited not only at some period of the second world war. The history of Lithuania presented in wikipedia here was false, becouse there was NO MENTIONED 20 thousand Lithuanian partisans - freedom fighters murdered and killed by Red army in period 1944-1952! This is falsification of the history - this period was the most dramatic in Lithuania history. I've made some correction about this. You say I must calm down. I'm calm enough, but I hate murders of any color and especialy their laweyrs! Your position about Red army crimes in Estonia description was - Strong delete per nomination and my comment on the above related AfD.MartinDK 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Your position about Red army crimes in Georgia was Strong delete POV forking of the worst kind. No way is this ever goingto be NPOV. Judging from the nominators comments someone should have a serious word or two with the creator about the meaning of disruption and POV pushing in general. MartinDK 08:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC) My postion is 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 crime analysis commited, 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 POWTtturbo 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC). THINK! (editting corrections made)Ttturbo 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if this is how you wish to behave then I have nothing more to say to you. That was one long insult against me and I could waste my time by pointing them out for you one by one but then again... I'm not sure that would be helpful. I'm not sure I understood everything you wrote here because as usual most of it was quite incoherent but I understood enough to realize that you obviously have no intentions of being civil or act in accordance with our policies in general. I understand you have a deadline of some sort that may be disrupting your ability to tell right from wrong but good faith assumption only goes so far and you have reached the limit now. The fact that you claim to be calm is.... well just disrturbing to me when I think about it really... MartinDK 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect all the rules and laws as a basic for justice- this is why I've defended myself in the court after police fabrications. The problem is, that I really have not enough understanding and experience about all the wiki rulesTtturbo 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On "The Answer"

Dear Ttturbo, I hope you will use the Wikipedia time now granted to you to read a number of important Wikipedia pages:

WP:NPA. No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Saying that something is hate speech, is strong language, but not a personal attack. Speedy deletion of an article by administrators is not a personal attack. Moving threaded or "all over the place" comment to a talk page, is not a personal attck, but standard practice on vote pages. Re-indenting the comments on your talk page is not a personal attack, but an attempt to help you (made by someone whom you asked for help). In fact, no one in this sorry episode ever issued a PA against you, not even Kuban kazak. Now compare that to what you have written in your comments on other people's votes: "don't be demagogic", "Petersburg student A Bakcharev", "You hide the traces of crimes and support red bandits". (comment to someone who votes for merge) "U are false! Your activitie looks like construction of assylum for military crimes comittments." (comment to someone who does not vote at all). Need I continue?

WP:NLT. No legal threats. "Do not make threats or claims of legal action against users or Wikipedia itself on Wikipedia." In fact implied by NPA. Invoking copyright infringement is not a legal threat. Deleting libellous content about a living person is not a legal threat. However, claiming that everyone who votes for deleting an article on Red Army crimes is an accomplice to such crimes and that "the EU is going to investigate this", knowing well that some of the voters are living in the EU, is a legal threat.

WP:NOR. No Original Research. You have on many occasions now expressed the view that the fact that Nazism killed only 20 million people and communism killed 100 million needs to be analyzed. Sorry, but that cannot be done here. An encyclopaedia is a descriptive medium - it describes what experts in the field now think about a particular phenomenon. We do not say how something can be explained, how it must be seen, how it must be done. And yet we have articles on sociology, ethics and even religion. Because we base articles on secondary sources: articles in newspapers, historical works, ... In other words, if you want to write on what happened to your grandmother using legal documents (=primary sources) you will probably be doing original research and you cannot use Wikipedia for that purpose. Note that NOR, Neutral Point of View and Verifiability are interconnected: whatever the sources say, the contributor to the article must appear as a neutral observer, and the sources you use must be from someone reputable.

WP:COI. "Avoid editing on subjects which are close to you." Obviously, when an article is about you, or uses as a secondary source a book or article written by you, or you stand to gain something if enough people read the article, you should not write such an article or edit it: to do otherwise is unscientific and unencyclopaedic. But when you repeat twice every day that your grandmother was killed by communists, other users may be very sorry, but they will at the same time conclude that you have a powerful conflict of interest. In other words, after some of this info gets merged (perhaps by people who voted merge), whether that is at Lithuanian SSR or Soviet war crimes, editors there will later tell you to leave that part of the article alone because of your COI.

You may also comment here on my version of the history of this on the Administrators' Notice board. I am not copying that here, because your page is big as it is. And again, use the time you are getting here now fruitfully and "have a cup of tea" (if only you had heeded that advice!) --Pan Gerwazy 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Gerwaz - You made some movement of MY coments naming them 'to be mess' and supported antidemocratic practise to delete articles about Red army crimes immediately without any discussion and you have got the result of this. This is very disruptive. Second, I was punnished for blocking 31 hour accused for personal attacks. But no one was touched when attacked me. I have understanding about abstract justice and what it is in this world and wikipedia unfortunately too. Sorry, but I don't want to discuss. Ttturbo 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained a number of times about the move. That I supported speedy delete on the later articles was because they were obviously written to illustrate a point - that you would continue to write such articles, even if everybody else objected to them. WP:POINT. I will assume good faith, and interpret the last sentence as meaning that you do not want to discuss this with me any further. Please do talk with other people who come here, discuss why you want to edit Wikipedia, try to understand what they consider WP:NPA, WP:COI, ... if you want to come back on board. Wishing you all the best, and hoping to see you back under better circumstances.--Pan Gerwazy 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought however. Please do not misinterpret my words: do not go (with an anonymous IP) to other people's talk pages. You have to stay on this page here. Again best wishes.--Pan Gerwazy 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your words about the article containing clear systematic information about Read army crimes were: Speedy delete and salt the earth. See Sjakkale. No reason to merge this one. Can we also agree that threaded comment here is immediately moved to the talk page? Judging by the page quoted by Miikka, this page is going to be attacked soon. --Pan Gerwazy 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo 06:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tell my experience in wikipedia to other humans, but i don't know - are they going to register here. First, I would like ask - why do you supported the antidemoctratic practice of Mikalaj - to delete without discussion? For example, if I make some mark for deletion on his article about distinct Baltic tribe Bartians containing few sentences in the beginning marking this for deletion becouse of being poor written, bad sourcing and not describing historical truth this article possilbly soon could be deleted. But now we have the great article started by Mikalaj about Bartians tribe distinct becouse of Polish and crusaders attacks! Wikipedia is a collective work and there are some possibilities - to improve the article or whole category by amny ysers and administrators, or start attack against the job process in the very beginning which must be collective. Secondly, I would like to ask why do you suppose - this is a threat, when mentioning that I support EU politics? Lots of users asked - why do I write those articles, that this is only my point of wiev, so I must explain something first. I do not force everyone or someone here to support blindly EU politics on comunism crimes and havent say to anyone - if You don't stop deleting of articles about military crimes and push your position - I appeal to Hague tribunal and EU parliament )this is my right!, I only explained my position (this is polite to answer), but You acused me in making poltical threat! Let Mikalaj or the others explain how they support Russian politics - what do they think about Red Army - this is their right too. So, your understanding about democracy is very strange - EU people have the right to express their opinion free accordinhg to constitutions of the all EU countries and conventions on human rights! About my poor murdered by russian grandmother - do You want to keep in your hand the bullet killed her? I've suffered this when I was seven - this was the largest first lesson of the history in my life. Some people say -under your window is burried some poor german soldier and not far from this -thousands of lithuanians were killed by russians - near the bridge. This is too close to me, but have'nt I the right to discuss general questions of this? I did'nt write the article here about my grandmother resting in peace and lefting too early four kids alone.

As someone already pointed out, you are your own worst enemy. Some people may have laughed when I claimed your appeals to the EU were legal threats, they will no longer do so now. You have also clearly indicated your own Conflict of Interest. You claim that Mikalaj and others can explain "how they support Russian politics". No, they cannot - not on Wikipedia article pages (they can on talk pages, of course). We all have a POV when we come to Wikipedia. We must use this POV to improve Wikipedia - by pointing out where others went wrong, not by going wrong ourselves. Sometimes realizing and incorporating our own POV can even help our own edits. After suffering a reverse almost daily on an article in Dutch Wikipedia on someone born in Rumia I looked for things which I may improve in the text I was putting in. When I read "in Polish Rumia" it suddenly dawned on me: why should I write "Polish" there, since in my POV everybody knows the place was Kashubian and is now Polish? So I deleted the word "Polish" in the text and mark - the same guy who used to revert my edits before is now defending the text against newcomers with a German nationalist POV. By the way, that situation Wikipedians call "consensus", a sort of state of grace for an article. There is preciously little chance that any of your edits could ever have led to consensus, because they were too far from NPOV and you do not seem to want to work together with people who do not share your opinion. --Pan Gerwazy 10:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say - don't push your own opinion and original research, wikipedia is descriptive. I agree, there is no place for do not confirmed theories, or this perhaps could be described only like the theory under discussion in the scientific world. But it is very boring to see wikipedia articles like only compilation of some statements from dusty heaps of books, scientific magazines and documents. I suppose, that the most important is to find out the main ideas and facts and present them in such specific way allowing to understand the problem or phenomena to others immediately. This is real art. But what is the result of this? I'we tried to write more than a year before, the article about social aggression, criticising Karl Marx too narrow point of wiev, and collecting I think all the main reasins of such aggression, unfortunately not making reference on Erich From study about this phenomena... So wikipedia had the article about basic reasons of social aggression for the year including subjective reasons of it too. But now there is no of such even poor sourced article. My opinion is - this was made by barbarians of XXI age!. They even not used possibility to force the author or some philosophers to source it - maybe at some trouble desk is nessecary eliminating barbarian attacks?. It seems to me that even using formal rules of wikipedia it is possible to make some unhumanistic activities unfortunately, so first, some rules must be changed or improved. Ttturbo 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Gerwaz removed my comments about Red Army crimes from voting debate page and now explains. Moving threaded or "all over the place" comment to a talk page, is not a personal attck, but standard practice on vote pages. Till this according to You is"general practice" but not THE wiki RULE, this is only general practice (I have no experience - is it true). Vote page and voteing debate page are different categories (on vote page You have three possibilities - Yes, now... but on debates You comment and explain position) and according to basic democratic rules about rights to spreed information free and right to defend Yourselves I've tried to explain my possition You named to be mess and defend myself. Even general pracitices sometimes could be antidemocratic and disruptive, but someone for the first time must to notice this and fix situation. The disccusing page for voting and debates must be used to discuss questions HOW WE DEBATE, but not to hide opinions from the other participants of debate and observers. My articles about the Red Army crimes were marked urgently for deletion by the same person, making no remark about his position by the articles and this is very antidemocratic to judge without any opinions and facts hearings.Ttturbo 06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From AfD etiquette

Don't reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count. Ttturbo 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it, do you?

Look. It's not that hard. This really is the Last Chance Saloon, unless you want to rely on the clemency of another admin. Usually, I'm fairly forgiving, but you are seriously putting a strain on my patience.

Stop pushing your own point of view. Stop making personal attacks. Stop shoving your original research in our direction. Stop making legal threats. Stop wikilawyering. Stop trolling. Until you give me a guarantee that you'll agree to all of this, I will not unblock. Moreschi ^Talk 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia perhaps is the most impressive and beutifull project of the world human society in the virtual space. Science, research and struggle for justice are the main lines of my life. When I was younger, I was awarded by some scientific competition and some people suppose me to be intelectual enough. I like the art of presentation of different phenomena, building and stressing clear structure of this, but my experience was too short here. There is only one reason for unblocking of me immediately - if there is possibility to apeal about destroyed articles according to wiki rules and some circumstamcies of it according to the rules. Otherwise, I must study the rules more deep for a few days, becouse I see some problems about them and different interpretations. I suppose, that some adwisorship is necessary for the newcomers - I trust some wikiusers will kindly help for newcomers, and if You unblock me immediately I suppose to discuss with you or the person you tell me, all the questions about opinion sharing with others and about the other - what is possible according to the rules and what is not before. I"m not the dot on the screen too, but I suppose You are very busy to verify some statements, unfortunately you trusted. I don't make from this great tragedy - it was a good experience how do wiki works. I understand - everyone must act here according to the rules and the internal law. But no one have the right to blackmail me -stop writting and publisshing about Red Army crimes, unfortunately I've made this poor languaged and sourced expecting much more help improving this but not so great judgeing on me. I still can not normally edit this page using only chapters edit. Why?Ttturbo 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can appeal deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I guarantee that you taking your stuff there will be a complete waste of time. It will stay deleted. This is not difficult. You have two options. Either you agree to the conditions I listed above, and I'll unblock. If you don't, I won't. Yes or no answer, please. There is no middle ground. Moreschi ^Talk 11:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' want to push my own opinion here becouse this does not correponds to the general wiki official policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.I've explained a number of times, answering to accusements started by Mikalaj that I suppose, my position, becouse of context category I inserted, to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POW, but if we stay this theme of Red Army about victories against nazzi, heroes, war victims alone - without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. The opinion I support is based on humanism, on general EU politics.I dont' want to make personal attack. It was my mistake saying to student Alex Bakcharev "Don't be demagogic". According to wiki rules I must say that "your position or your statement on the comitted Red army crimes is demagogic" or appeal about his POV. I was punished for 31 hour.I dont' want to show my original research. (I.ve made original research only about circumstances of my grandmother's murdering by Red army in march 1945 and about people murdering in Tbilisi 9 april 1989 by Red Army, becouse I know person who was a member of parliamentary comission too). My articles were stubbed and some of them had sources even from authoritative international commisions, but there was no time to finish such sourcing.I don't want to make legal threats. I've just only warned to respect the official law systems of every country, which are even more powerful than wiki rules (in general they all are based on this too). I don't want to make any wikilawyering. Thanks I aquainted with this hidden iscussed problem too and I'm afraid that I've missunderstood something in wikirules becouse of beeing in a great hurry and becouse english is not my native language. I'm sorry if this happened. I've told above - I RESPECT ALL WIKI RULES.I don't want to be disruptive troll .(This accusement made by Miranda, who made some disruption of my job is very insultive too) . Well educated people and intelectuals could see and discuss lots of phenomena in much more wide context. For them nothing is clear where for studies beginer everything is clear. Sometimes this could be understood to be unusfull chat. My task was to describe Red army crimes musch better than it was done before, but my all articles disruptively urgent were marked for deletion. I suppose, that my behavior was something of this: There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls. A troll deliberately exploits weaknesses of human nature or of an online community to upset people. It is said in wiki - Don't bit the newcomer Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Someone used my human nature, and I've got the high blood pressure becouse of lots of stresses and unjustice, which I suffered not only here. So, I'm going to write more music inspirated by Hendel and Bach, but not to be in such great hurry here. On the state Day of Lithuania from Ttturbo 06:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bring one thing to your attention, as you claim many things are undemocratic. Wikipedia is not a democracy. John Hayes^talk 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. Thanks. YES it is not. But someone asks to vote for anyone on all the world wiki now. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. Democratic traditions are respected here, I hope and some basic rules of democracy are used: right to talk and spreed information, right to defend. I see, higher level stressing the moral and good will too - Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures Ttturbo 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the last one: something seems to have gone wrong when you and User:Miranda were busy moving things around and about at the bottom of this page. The message about your first block has an edit link which goes to the chapter following it - I suppose you are no longer allowed to edit that either. But it does cause every link after that one to go to the text after it. No big deal: you can edit the lower chapters by clicking on the link to the chapter preceding the chapter you want to edit. Perhaps some administrator or bureaucrat should have a look at it, because to newcomers here it may be a bit awkward.--Pan Gerwazy 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. It was caused by a very strange error when a warning template was posted on your talk page. The title was wrapped in a conditional statement only used on templates which caused the software to think that there was no section break when there should be one. I'm not entirely sure how that happened but I suspect that someone may have been trying to correct what he/she believed to be an error when the template was inserted. In fact there was no error to begin with, the section title should have been inserted manually rather than try to alter what was being subst'ed. Either that or there is an error in the template code. Anyway, it should be working now. MartinDK 12:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having investigated this further there appears to have been an error in the template code. The template works fine now, when it was subst'ed it was missing some code in the part that determines if a section header should be created or not. So, it was no ones fault just an error in the template code at the time it was posted on your talk page. MartinDK 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this {{#if:{{{header|}}}|=={{{header-text|[[:{{{1}}}]]}}}==}} had been turned into this {{#if:1|=={{{header-text|[[:{{{1}}}]]}}}==}} which caused the error. MartinDK 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was this SOMEONE? Jim Dunnining? Administrator Jersey Devil? Ttturbo 06:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my User and Talk pages.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've unblocked you. Please stick to Wikipedia's rules, and stay away from this whole Red Army business. Wikipedia is a very big place. I recommend you find other articles to edit. Please stay strictly within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, or I will have no hesitation in reblocking. Moreschi ^Talk 08:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Red army crimes were really awfull - at Rainiai massacre red bandits used for murdering of 76 Lithuanian daggers, cut out genitals of the poor victims and put them into mouthes of victims.Ttturbo 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes and signature

Ttturbo, I see you're experimenting with some userboxes. You might try using this code to get what you want—
{{userboxtop
| align = right
| backgroundcolor = Yellow
| bordercolor = #000099
| extra-css=clear:both;float:right;margin:10px 15px 0px 10px;
| toptext ='''Ttturbo's Interests'''}}
{{User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Friendly}}
{{userboxbottom}}

The code produces this →

Ttturbo's Interests

This user wants to be your friend.

You cant put in as many Userboxes as you want.

Also, you can sign your edits so your Username (linked to your user page) and the date/time appear automatically by putting ~~~~ at the end of your edit. Good luck.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]