User talk:96.9.247.171

Welcome!

Hello, 96.9.247.171, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

POV edits in articles on Crimea

Could you please stop waste our time adding POV wording to Crimean articles? None of your edits has been appropriate, I reverted all of them, and what you want to say is already in the articles written in neutral language. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter: Unfortunately you present your subjective opinion as "accepted point of view" while your edits are purely POV. You revert all edits that correctly show status of Crimea as an occupied part of Ukraine. Instead, you, Ymblanter, insist that Crimea is a part of Russia. International law defines Crimea an integral part of Ukraine and Wikipedia should not spread any other positions.

April 2018

Please do not alter quotations. In this set of edits you altered a quotation from

"Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula."

To:

"Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after Russian troops took over the peninsula."

I checked the source. I do not know why Britain's communist-dominated BBC wrote what they did. But they did.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that changing the file names of reference to images stops things working correctly. In this set of edits you altered a filename from "Outline Map of Crimea in Russia (vector).svg" to "Outline Map of Crimea (vector).svg". This is a bit stupid. You did not check that there was a file called "Outline Map of Crimea (vector).svg"!-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the Russian language names for places in the Ukraine, as you did here. Just under half the people in the Ukraine speak Russian as their first language. The idea that only the Ukrainian-language is valid is a fantasy of neo-Nazis from Lvov and their foreign supporters.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you edited uses Template:Infobox Russian federal subject. One of your changes was to change a parameter name from "established_date =" to "Annexed_date =". There is no "Annexed_date =" parameter in that template, so your edit did not work. Next time please check. Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required. You are trying to do the right thing, and making a mess of it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I do not see any right thing here. The articles have been seen by quite a lot of people, and literally every word there is a result of some compromise, many things have been thoroughly discussed. An attempt to add POV wording (by either side) is not going to help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Autonomous Republic of Crimea, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@EvergreenFir:, the IP were actually right in this particular case (adding the Ukrainian flag to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it was a result of POV pushing from the opposite side which I previously overlooked. All their other edits are wither not constructive, or outright disruptive. If they continnue, they will be presented to ANI and blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please read WP:Righting Great Wrongs and discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. Also, please refrain from casting aspersions on your fellow editors, such as your edit summary saying "I am sure that, as in the case with 2016 US elections, there are many paid agents of the Russian Federation to swing any discussion held here." A central pillar of Wikipedia is WP:Assuming good faith from other editors and treating each other with respect. Thank you for your attention, and welcome to Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 17:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

It looks like there is a pro-Russian conspiracy among editors. You try to suppress objective expression of facts in favor of your, Kremlin's, agenda. There is absolutely no reason to block somebody who adds a reference to a statement made by By EIGHT EUROPEAN FOREIGN MINISTERS. Poll numbers in Russia occupied Crimea can not be trusted. "Broad repressive policies have followed, leading to widespread human rights abuses such as imprisonment on political grounds, closure of media outlets and schools, and several cases of killings and disappearances.", https://euobserver.com/opinion/141353. You blocked me when I was adding this reference. Apparently, this is a 'freedom of speech' - Russian style. Bob Mueller waits for you, guys.

Decline reason:

To the best of my knowledge, Courcelles is not a Russian operative. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2018 (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.

Crimea related pages are controlled by Russian trolls. Look at one of the comments to my edits from Toddy1: "The idea that only the Ukrainian-language is valid is a fantasy of neo-Nazis from Lvov and their foreign supporters.-- Toddy1 (talk)". This is a typical Kremlin's rhetoric. Unfortunately, Wikipedia became a tool that spreads Putin/Kremlin propaganda... Toddy1 invents the argument about Ukrainian language, then adds neo-Nazis accusation, then mentions 'foreign supporters'. All statements have nothing to do with my edits, but apparently that's how you guys are taught by your Russian government supervisors. Again, it is obvious that Crimea Wikipedia pages are under control of the Russian government agents directly or indirectly via proxies.

Why you have problems doing the right thing in the wrong way

The source you wanted to use [1] was clearly labelled as an opinion piece. There is a Wikipedia policy that relates to these: WP:NEWSORG. This says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

This was why your reference was not allowed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1: after your biased and baseless neo-Nazi accusations (above) all your suggestions are meaningless and ill-intended.

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Republic of Crimea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Republic of Crimea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea#Possible consensus building.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea#Possible consensus building.. Your input would be greatly appreciated. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:96.9.247.171 reported by User:Javert2113 (Result: ). Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 9 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Contributors with biased positions try to use technicality to block me from participation in the discussion; they try maintain a biased page regarding Crimea. Some editors/contributors try to legitimize annexation of Crimea on the Wikipedia page instead of providing objective information. The argument is about one edit and one statement that 'Crimea is internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine', those who seek blocking me want to remove this statement from the page summary. Censorship that is motivated purely by their allegiance to Russia. One may check their wikipages and see that they first language is Russian or they do speak Russian. Nothing is wrong about that but they can't maintain objective position regarding the Crimea topic. Wikipedia should take this into account, especially in the light of Facebook issues, Russian troll farms, etc. One of the contributors left a message accusing Ukrainian side in being neo-Nazis, etc.. Do we expect honest behavior from these contributors?

Here is the last exchange before they blocked me:

Me: P.S. Note should be visible in the summary, use the same font as other messages. I believe current version is already acceptable. Footnote is not acceptable. Summary already hides a lot of important information. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Me: Comment: It is really unfortunate that Ymblanter and some other contributors to this page consistently try to block me. I believe that Crimea pages are under strong control / influence of people connected to Russian government interests. Wikipedia should do something about this. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda by a totalitarian regime as it happens here and now. 96.9.247.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: This clearly demonstrates your battleground mentality and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is why you will be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that Ymblanter knows that the discussion is going on, but he wants to remove my small edit that Crimea is internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine. Go and look at his wikipage, what is his/her first language? Right, it is Russian.

Please see also discussion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Crimea#Possible_consensus_building It is also obvious that Ymblanter looks for an opportunity to block so she/he can suppress an objective commonly accepted point of view in favor Kremlin agenda.

It is up to Wikipedia now is either to maintain Western standards or go with contributors like Ymblanter and Toddy1 and others that use knowledge of technical Wikipedia procedures to push their Kremlin inspired agenda and suppress contributions from the rest of us.

Remember, the whole argument is about one statement only: "Crimea is internationally recognised as a part of Ukraine."

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided; requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 9 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please note, it is not about personal attacks - it is about systematic bias from several people who suppress input of the objective information. Your, jpgordon, decision not to lift the block may further undermine trustworthiness of Wikipedia - please reconsider. Personal attack is a subjective statement about somebody. I point attention to circumstances that explain why several contributors are not capable to act objectively. I seek explanation of their behavior because their previous comments could not be explained by anything else but Russian propaganda. They made statements about 'neo-Nazis in Ukraine', 'their [neo-Nazis] foreign supporters', 'Ukrainian nationalists'; all these are typical statements of the Russian propaganda machine. If one reads their contributions and explanations, including to this page, one can easily see their bias. This bias is explained in my argument. This is not a personal attack at all. Let's not forget that the whole argument is about inclusion of only one statement into summary of the page: "According to international law, Crimea is a part of Ukraine". Instead, the current version of summary (they blocked me because of this)attributes annexed Crimea to Russia while not saying anything about the annexation or international position. These guys try to prevent my objective edit using all kinds of procedural techniques including blocking requests. Who is making a personal attack, those who try suppress objective edit that reflects international law while using offensive and untruthfull statements (see above) or people who ask to include one statement only that is a common knowledge everywhere but the Russian Federation? Thank you.

Decline reason:

Requests containing personal attacks will not be considered, as you have already been told. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is not a personal attack. The page is controlled by people with an obvious bias. You don't dispute that. But how can one point this out without talking about this bias? Of course, we can agree that if somebody either via creation of multiple identities or via group efforts decide to highjack a topic or a page, Wikipedia can not do anything and Wikipedia will not do anything. Simple investigation of edits from these several people/identities would show their true intentions. So what do we do? Nothing?

Decline reason:

Continuing on this same exact path has resulted in the loss of your talk page access, which I fully endorse. The page is not controlled by anyone, and there is no bias. WP:NPOV ensures this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2018 (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.

As you are continuing making personal attacks even while denying making personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. Whoever reviews your latest unblock request can restore it if they see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore: How can you be so sure? Wikileaks did not serve Russian interests? You did not block people for merely expressing some criticism of how Wikipedia conducts business by allowing Russian trolls fully control Crimea pages? It seems to me you willingly help to spread Russian propaganda. Why do you do that? What is your interest there?

That further personal attack has just earned you a longer block, with no talk page access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.