User talk:YMB29

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russian Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! abakharev 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Edit summaries like reverted edits by a nazi sympathizer are unacceptable abakharev 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Relax

Calm down! "Nazi Symphatisator"? "Sily"? You will get blocked is that what you want??

"Nazi Sympathizer" was two years ago. -YMB29 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Я тоже Русский, и согласен с тобой! Ну чтобы выжить в Википедии надо искать нетральность. Ну выругаешь ты его, и что? Тебя блокируют нахрен и все, он будет радоваться! Нужно тебе это?? Культурно спорь, даже не с культурными людьми. Это всего лишь Википедия. Спокойнее! Знаешь сколько тут западников которые с радостью заблакируют всех Руских и привратят Википедию в свой агитационный ларек? Ну дашь им причину блокировать тебя! Кому от этого легче станет? Спокойнее! Тебя никто не торопит. Kostan1 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Я знаю, но за "silly" меня не заблокируют. -YMB29 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please enter the talk page of the article. Kostan1 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the new version

Hope you agree on it. Kostan1 (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I'm sorry for taking you as the POV pusher in the article and for speaking to you with rudness. The reverts that Biophys just did, while at the same time you chose the talk page to bring up the points you don't agree with clearly showed me who is the POV pusher. I'm sorry. Kostan1 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry you were not rude. I don't know what we are going to do with Biophys; talking to him is like banging your head against the wall... -YMB29 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please bring a link saying the NKVD Order No. 00689 lasted only for two years. Kostan1 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I linked the article in my version and on the talk page. NKVD Order No. 00689 changed NKVD Order No. 00486. -YMB29 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar (your first?)

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping to bring the Human rights in the Soviet Union to an NPOV, for being civil and using the talk page for things you don't agree with, for reverting a user who clearly pushes his NPOV into the nutral version, even though you yourself don't agree with many things in it. In other words, for maturity. Continue to be a great user! Kostan1 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk?

Hi YMB29, maybe we should talk a little instead of edit waring? Is that you who edits in Russian WP as Deerhunter?Biophys (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not me.

If you want to finally talk then I am waiting for you to do so on the article's talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe later. I just wonder: you are doing almost nothing but reverts in a single article for the entire month. Do not you have anything better to do? You apparently came here from Russian WP. So, what are your real interests?Biophys (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not from Russian WP.

Look at what you are doing in that article. I can't add anything to the article because of your senseless reverting. If you can't discuss, then maybe you should stay away instead of always reverting. -YMB29 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if we both edited something else. But this is up to you. Regards,Biophys (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For some time maybe, but any future changes or reverts will have to be explained if asked. -YMB29 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Block

I've looed at your AN3 report and the page history. You have 3R, B has 2. You think B should be blocked for edit warring; logically, therefore, you think you should be too. So I have, for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What? This tells me you have not bothered to even look at what I wrote...

Logically what? I don't think there is logic in your statement. You don't want to look at what he did on the 15th? -YMB29 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

15th of what? September? No William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The 15th of June. He made a revert of the whole article and not of what a user changed on that day. In his edit summary he wrote that he disagreed with that user's edit, but he reverted the whole article!

I did not notice what he did until yesterday. He has done that many times before.

You should also look at the talk page and see that Biophys did not respond to my discussion multiple times.

And about the comment made by Piotrus on the noticeboard, did that influence you to make a decision? You should know that Piotrus has no objectivity on this since Biophys is close to him. Biophys supported him in this arbitration.

I don't understand the reason for my block. -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

YMB29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reported a user starting an edit war again but got blocked myself. I don't understand the reason. The user Biophys clearly made a sneaky revert of the article to revert to his favorite version which he failed to prove/discuss numerous times. So instead of reverting back and forth again I reported it. The admin completely ignored what I wrote in the report, and said that since I have one more revert than Biophys I should be blocked... He does not count the revert made by his friend (or maybe sock) and the original revert in June (I only realized yesterday what he did). Why is he allowed to bypass discussion and revert? Then when I try to do something about it instead of just reverting like him, I get punished.

Decline reason:

No, you get stopped from edit warring, which is what you were doing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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).

YMB29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You don't get it. Instead of continuing the edit war with Biophys and his friend I went and reported it. Then I get blocked and he does not, what is the logic here? Biophys has good relations with admins? I did not break 3RR. The admins don't care to look at what he did on the 15th of June or at his failure to carry on a discussion on the article's talk page? You don't care to actually look at what is going on? What am I supposed to do now? I tried to discuss edits, but Biophys just ignores the discussion after a few responses and then reverts, often making misleading edit summaries to hide what he is reverting. He is just careful to avoid 3RR.

Decline reason:

I fail to see why what someone did in mid-June should matter in mid-September. What happened then is no longer "going on", so I see no reason why I need to look at it. Anyway, if you want to be unblocked, you should probably focus on your actions, not everyone else's. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter when he did it. The fact is that he reverted mine and others' changes that were there for months without explaination and while misleading everyone in the edit summary. I noticed it only now. You wanted me to sit on that page everyday to police it from him?

Also tell me why when I "did the right thing" by reporting the edit warring, instead of continuing it with him, I get in trouble? Should I have just continued to revert like he did? -YMB29 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

3RR

I believe you just violated 3RR rule in the same article. I recommend that you revert your last edit back. Otherwise, you may be reported. Another editor would probably reported you already.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4. Biophys (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The last two edits are not reverts but additions, silly. Nice try, but I know your tactics. -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They are. Let's ask an administrator. I am sending the report. Why do not you listen User:Kostan1 (at your page above)? Biophys (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. Get us both blocked. Maybe you it will make you think about your behavior.-YMB29 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

YMB29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR. My last two edits[1] [2] were additions, not reverts. Last week I tried to do the right thing and reported Biophys for edit warring [3], but his admin friend showed up and made a comment in favor of Biophys, and that might have influenced the decision to block me instead. Anyway the admin who blocked me did not even bother to look at what I reported, and recently he lost his admin rights. Others have reported the same problem with Biophys. [4]. I tried to get an admin to look at the dispute, but he seems to be away for now. 48 hours vs. 31 for him is unfair, especially considering how I was already blocked unfairly the first time. Can an honest admin do something about this? All the evidence agaisnt Biophys is there if one would just take some time to look.

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM before making another request.  Sandstein  18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Please be informed that we are both placed under editing restrictions.Biophys (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this is not true. Only members of the secret email list are topic banned. The list of members is here: [5]. You can continue editing. Offliner (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like Biophys does not want me to edit because he can't revert like he is used to. -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk warning

You have recently engaged in a series of posts on ArbCom pages which contained highly charged assertions and hence breached the specific guidelines on user conduct handed down by ArbCom concerning the EEML case. You are thus receiving a first and final warning. Any further misconduct will result in a ban from the relevant ArbCom pages until the conclusion of the EEML case (except in direct response to an ArbCom question). Violation of that ban will result in blocking. Manning (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)