Im sorry but you told me that my edits were biased?
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by starvation) refers to the famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR during which millions of people starved to death as a result of the economic and trade policies instituted by the government of Joseph Stalin. The famine was a part of wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933. There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932.[1][2] The Holodomor is considered one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history. Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe.[1][3][4][5] Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.6 million[6][7] to 10 million.[8]
Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine did not occur.[58][59][60][61] This denial and suppression was made in official Soviet propaganda and was supported by some Western journalists and intellectuals.[59][60][62][63][64]
Denial of the famine by Soviet authorities, including President Mikhail Kalinin and Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, was immediate and continued into the 1980s. The Soviet party line was echoed at the time of the famine by some prominent Western journalists, including Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer. The denial of the famine was a highly successful and well orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Soviet government [58][59][60]. Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky[60]. That was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system, according to Robert Conquest [38]
The criticism is portrayed as an evil Soviet plot to brainwash its people.
This is all in a section that's titled "Denial of the Holodomor".
All I did was neutrally present the leftist viewpoint and the criticism of the famine.
thank you
I thought I got it but I was sadly mistaken, too funny. Regardless, I am writing about a business and have a few questions if you could help me out. I understand the "circling" of Wiki pages already created i.e. bands, athletes, etc. but I'm wondering why I can't post the current list of signed licenses and reference them without an opinion to their current Wiki pages. Also, you deleted the whole page of content...are you able to review it first and let me know if any of it can be used? I wanted to post fees as there is a section about the company that is a false representation even stating that we are with MasterCard which is a direct violation of our contractual agreement and its written as an opinion. Simple Plan Does that make sense at all? =) I will rewrite the content and keep it more simple and in an encyclopedic format so to speak. I may reference you a bit if you don't mind as I do want to get this right. Thank you for your guidance, I really appreciate it. I will get a handle on this quickly. Everette M. (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Everette M.[reply]
I don't think they realize how little effort is expended on 'our' side versus on 'theirs', minus conversations like this, which is really about keeping ourselves entertained. tedder (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen You deleted my edit in the history section under intrapreneurship. I do not understand why you accused me of "changing my name" or creating another account. I have but one and I am a different person that the person I was writing about. True I do know that person, however, the update was still accurate. I have never self-promoted. Please undelete the reference and kindly refrain from false assumptions. Since my brand is my name, doing so may irreparably harm me and I do take that very seriously.Stephenlibman (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)stephenlibman[reply]
Yes, you'll recall that I was open to the possibility that you were either the same user as User:Intrapreneurshipdror a friend of his who was editing because he'd asked him to. He isn't allowed to use Wikipedia to promote himself, even if he does so by asking someone else to do the actual typing. If you are interested in editing Wikipedia for yourself, though, rather than on your friend's behalf, you're entirely welcome here. The question is not whether the fact that Edward Haller wrote a masters' thesis on the subject is true- it's whether it's important. I myself wrote a master's thesis on The Faerie Queene, but that doesn't mean that adding my name to the article on that subject would be helpful to the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen you need to unblock this IP they did nothing wrong. You know it, and you were so rude to them and I quote <Start Qoute>Since you can't understand why you are blocked, and won't believe that you really are blocked<End Quote>To me it sound like you are just playing with them and when you are done you block the talk page. You owe them a sorry letter and also you unblock the IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.99.83.3 .
I'm going to explain this to you just once more. We are not playing with you, this is not a game. You really are blocked. Stop changing ips to avoid your block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless abuse
I understand, Hitler. You and your chronies have successfully raped the formerly free encyclopedia into your own ideal image. Maybe I was adding to my stub before it was marked for speedy delete within seconds of posting. Fucking WikiNazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancermustdie (talk • contribs)
What's funny about this is that she never even bothered to write the deleted article- it wasn't deleted for lack of notability, but for absence of content. She's made three different personal attacks but no attempt to actually write an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. FisherDyke here declined my completely valid unblock request. Bitch. Fortunately, i was persistent in my fight for justice, and kind Beeblebrox accepted my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beteskilla (talk • contribs)
This is what I get for trying to be nice. Right now another person who I let talk me into unblocking them is trying to get ArbCom to clear his name and say his original blocking was unjustified. I'm getting the feeling that there may be a direct correlation between how cynical an admin is and how many unblock rerquests they have handled... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She had ample warning, and at no time did anyone even use the cheerful sarcasm that is sometimes directed at unhelpful editors; she saw only polite explanations, and responded with hateful attacks. Heaven knows what she'd do if she were in a really tense editing conflict, when she can't even deal with the idea that, in order to have an article published at Wikipedia, you do have to actually write an article. I just gave her a short block, though; if she wants to come back with better manners, she can.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs)02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with that. The personal attacks went beyond the user talk pages. It started with the deleted article talk page where they first reacted to the deletion. Sorry that they think you deleted the article and got some abuse for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me that the attacks continued. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block messages
Please try to maintain a professional tone when blocking editors. I understand that User:Cancermustdie was not editing productively and was engaging in personal attacks, and I have declined the request for unblocking. However, it's not difficult to understand why Cancermustdie was upset by the blocking message. When we respond to attacks with sarcasm (especially when we are using our buttons to limit their editing options), it does not have the effect of defusing the situation. A neutral block message is much more likely to convince the blocked editor to improve his behavior once the block ends. Dekimasuよ!03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I do have a template which I use on very rare occasions, on users who are behaving so outrageously badly that it seems unlikely that they will improve their behavior, who have failed to respond to politeness, and who have been blocked after making choices that they understood would lead to those blocks. It's a template I use rarely, and I've been often complimented on it by other editors and admins. However, I acknowledge that it is not helpful in situations which might be defused by politeness or reasonable discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A twice-banned user is assuming two new identities
FisherQueen, I need your help. There is a person who is vandalizing Wikipedia and trying to evade his block via sock puppets. I believe you are familiar with him. His original name was azayas4reel and he has since used the sock puppet HarabianNights (which has also been banned) and now HarabianNights1. I believe he has created another sock puppet based on my handle. He is now going by Tainotalisman2 and he is trying to prevent a deletion of an article on Anthony Zayas. I am not Tainotalisman2 nor want to be confused for him. Please advise. Thanks, Tainotalisman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainotalisman (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You accidentally put your comment in the middle of someone else's, so I've moved it for you. Gay people are welcome on Wikipedia, obviously, but since most of your edits have been vandalism, I'm reluctant to invite you to join the LGBT WikiProject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previously blocked IP 76.167.244.204 has started up again recently, editing similarly themed articles as those edited before the block. I also noticed this unreferenced IP 76.172.77.227 was getting in on the action as well. I had to revert some incorrect information added by this second IP, but nothing that can be called explicitly vandalism yet. Thought you might want to take a look since you have made posts on the 76.167.244.204 talk page. Cheers. GreyWyvern⚒05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't want to block him if he actually does own the copyright on that bit of text; a reliable history would be useful on that page, and it's very generous of him to offer to release it to us. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we need CC-By-SA now, although GFDL is a nice extra. :) (Actually, essential from sole copyright owners, but joint copyright owners may at their discretion trailing away into technicalities....) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did tell him exactly what to say to get his block reduced to 24 hours, and he replied with some not very nice things rather than saying it, which indicates to me that he'd prefer to be blocked. Which is okay with me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given his overall combative approach, best for everybody at this point. I had crafted a note for him myself, but waffled over language, and before I got the chance to post it he had already hauled aloft his flaming brands to burn the witch(es). At that point, my assumption of good faith grew alarmed and scurried away. I have not seen it since. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is all so unfair! It makes my gift look all pointed and teeth-breaking. Therefore, I see your s'mores and raise you a chocolate cake. ➜❝Redvers❞15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the threat to sue Wikipedia I was worried about, the Foundation is big enough to take care of itself. But threatening to sue involved admins, well, takes the biscuit, doesn't it? Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block for legal threats was lifted as the threats were withdrawn. I take it you still have the school page watchlisted in case the copyvio is readded. I feel we've explained the situation fully now and further disruptive editing can only lead to an indef block, with removal of talk page rights if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I'm curious to see what happens when the 24-hour block expires. I'm not satisfied that he understands the difference between the information in the article, which is not copyrighted, and the text of the article, which is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cookie
Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!