User talk:Mogilev82

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mogilev82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Renata (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, they delete referenced information, intervent! Free Belarus (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Free Belarus, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to Mogilev82 (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Please do also keep in mind that we strive to maintain a neutral point of view here, and editing that violates that principle can also get you into trouble. Just a word of caution since you obviously have strong feelings about Belarus. Also, the only exception to the policy on edit warring is reverting blatant vandalism. For everything else, puruse page protection or dispute resolution as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, I am being NPOV, all I say is referenced, I used the discussion page, the thing is those who revert me don't say anything, they just revert! One deletes references of categories of the person because he doesn't like it, another one doesn't see the difference between nationality and ethnicity and labels him as an ethnic Pole thought he isn't an ethnic Pole but a Pole by nationality, I am actualy being completely NPOV! Free Belarus (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why my nicknamed was forced to be changed? Yes, this nick is an oposition to Lukashenka, but I saw alot of users here having their political ideologies written on their page, so I don't understand why Free Belarus was so wrong. Free Belarus (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring and using sock abusively

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusively using multiple accounts and IPs and edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:08, 22 March 2010 (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).

Mogilev82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. The reference clearly states Kościuszko was Belarusian ethnicity, so there is no justification to delete the Belarus related categories. On the discussion page it was many time discussed that it's not right few Polish nationalists delete those stuff, yet they keep on doing it, and by ignoring it you give legitimacy to it. All I did was adding referenced information, with the categories that come along, yet some people just reverted it ignoring all discussion and pushing their POV, so I was blocked? They deleted references and categories fitting there!

2. About the Poles page. Kościuszko was not an ethnic Pole, while the article Poles is about the ethnic group Poles, so how can he stay in the collage? And one more thing! I started on the discussion page a discussion about it as you can see, could you force all sides to take part in it? It's not right people just revert without giving any rational to why they revert.

3. You blamed me for sock puppetry and even blocked me indefinitely, that is simply not true. I wasn't blocked till you blocked me, I was editing from the IP because I didn't feel like loging in, thats all. It's weird that I'm blocked, while user Marekchelsea who kept on ignoring the talk page when I asked him to enter there for discussion and who deleted references and delets categories is not blocked. Please unblocked me and force ALL sides to explaine themselves on the discussion page. Mogilev82 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not likely you will be unblocked unless you can explain how you will change your own behavior in the future. This unblock request simply blames others for your predicament. It was not other people who forced you to choose a user name, 'Free Belarus', which sounds like a political slogan. It was not other people who forced you to make six reverts of Tadeusz Kościuszko, some of them with an IP sock, in the seeming attempt to avoid detection of your 3RR violation. If you want to be unblocked, here are some ideas that would strengthen your request:

Promise to observe a 1RR rule (no more than one revert per article per day).
Edit for three months in areas that have nothing to do with Belarus
Limit yourself to editing with one single account.

I don't guarantee that these assurances would be enough, but they seem to me like a minimum requirement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (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.

The sock puppetry charge is a serious one -- people don't always react well when someone uses multiple identities in an argument, and some people view logging out as just that -- but I'm also concerned by your penchant for edit warring. If you were unblocked, would you agree to avoid reverting, and instead discuss your edits and develop consensus through dispute resolution? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I was blocked one time due to my nickname, which I changed by the way (which is funny people didn't like my link and blamed me for nationalism, my nickname was just an opposition to Lukashenko, I didn't know opposing to him is nationalism), that's all! I didn't do any sockpuppeting. And it's funny I, who tried to start a discussion and used references am blocked, while Polish nationalists who revert without explanation whoever does what they don't like are not blocked. Just check the discussion pages of those pages, many people complaoned on that fact! I mean, that's stupid! The link clearly states he was of Belarusian ethnicity, what is their problem? Why not to add Belars related categories? And I am the one that's blocked after that! I didn't want to edit war, I was the first to complain on the admins board on this argument, I was the one who asked so an admin would protect the page, force the sides to enter the discussion page and then decide who'se right and what will or won't be entered. I reverted only because no admin responsed to my call! If the page will be protected, the sides will be forced to come to the discussion page and then you after seeing what both sides say will decide who'se right, sure during that time I won't revert, I don't want this revert war! If you look at my first reverts you will see I always called them to enter the discussion page, if they would, I wouldn't revert, but they ignored it and kept on reverting. So if there are two Polish nationalists reverting one person wanting it to be NPOV, of course the one person will brake the 3RR because he is one! I mean, one guy said "Leave the Polish articles to the Poles", another said nothing and kept on delting references and categories, and I am the blocked one? Mogilev82 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (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).

Mogilev82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I said I will not revert if an admin will organise a discussion on the page and will take the things under her control. If not, what choice do I have when some Polish nationalists delete legitimate references and categories only because he doesn't like them? If the admin will tell all sided to come to the discussion board, to tell their side, and decide who is right of course I won't revert! Be that admin, do it, and I won't revert but stay only on the talk page. I always said we should start reverting and go to the talk page! About the nickname, it is a political slogan, against Lukashenko, that I didn't denie, but I changed it already. And about the sock... it wasn't a sock, it was just me being lazy to log in! No I'm blocked and I don't edit from the IP, when I weren't blocked I edited from the IP and I said it's me. Mogilev82 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't feel comfortable unblocking you at this time. Instead of agreeing to the completely reasonable terms mentioned above, you replied that you'll only stop after further admin intervention. This does not say to me that you will stop your edit-warring. Q ^{T C} 10:43, 25 March 2010 (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.

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).

Mogilev82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seems pretty reasonable to me. An admin should arrange a discussion page talk between all sides, and then to decide how the text should look like. If you, as an admin, will say now you will do it, I don't edit war any more, because there will be no need for that! Previously what happened was that some Polish nationalists removed references they didn't like and the admins did nothing. If an admin will take this case... I won't revert. And I don't understand why the admins are so afraid to take the case? It's obvious that this case needs an admin. Mogilev82 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Admins are janitors, not referees. If you will only agree not to edit war if your conditions are met, then unblocking you would not be in Wikipedia's best interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (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.

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).

Mogilev82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Interesting, then if two Polish nationalists delete references and categories witout any explanation because they don't like it, it's not the admins responsibility? Then who should handle this thing if not the admins? And what choice does a user have but to revert them, by returning the references and the categories they deleted? And why is he blocked for edit warring and they are not? Mogilev82 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:00, 27 March 2010 (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.

While you are blocked, Wikipedia policy is that you should not remove or otherwise refactor old unblock requests, so I have reverted you last edit to this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]