User talk:Illyukhina

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Sasha (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I do not speak English well. but My edits are not vandalism! I have been edited only to help prevent the vandalism.--Illyukhina (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dismas|^(talk) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I do not speak English well. but My edits are not vandalism! I have been edited only to help prevent the vandalism.--Illyukhina (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are many things to do on Wikipedia. Please try to start with something less controversial. Sasha (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Would you please stop warring over nothing at Mikhail Gorbachev (or get blocked, both). Thanks. PS @Petrukhina above (well it is deleted already): yes, you're both kindly advised to fully use edit summaries. Materialscientist (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and (stop warring) not only at Mikhail Gorbachev, but everywhere. Materialscientist (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been edited only to help prevent the vandalism.--Illyukhina (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I bet Petrukhina will say the same. It is truly essential to learn how to resolve conflicts without reverting each other. Materialscientist (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical and controversial edits.[edit]

Dear Illyukhina, As you mention before on your Talk page, you do not speak English well, however, you decided to become a major editor of English Wikipedia. Your multiple changes to country names in Wikipedia's BLP are unethical and controversial. For example: Original article reads Riga Latvia, you altered it as Riga Soviet Union. This creates a confusion as a geographical place Soviet Union is too broad, but with Riga Latvia visitors would better understand that this place is in Northern Europe. If the visitors follows the link Riga it will display an article that Riga is the capital and largest city of Latvia (NOT Soviet Union). This creates a controversy as Latvian people ALWAYS consider the name of their country as Latvia even for a short period when it was a part of Soviet Union but international name was still Latvia. Legal status: The United States, United Kingdom, and other countries considered the occupation of Latvia by the USSR illegal, citing the Stimson Doctrine, in 1940, but recognized all borders of the USSR at post-World War II conferences. In spite of this, the United States refused to recognize the annexation of Latvia or the other Baltic States, by the Soviet Union, at any time of the existence of the USSR. Once again, this is English Wikipedia, not Soviet Encyclopedia, so you need to stop promoting Soviet Union here. Besides, you do not provide an edit summary or valid references to your edits. You are not willing to reach a consensus, as you simply delete all warnings and communications from your talk page and continue editing Biographies of Living Persons despite being warned or blocked. Voyad M (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring.[edit]

Hi, we both have been blocked for edit warring. Let's discuss the issues. Let's come to consensus. Petrukhina (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Stanislavski[edit]

The article Constantin Stanislavski has been edited by Illyukhina who changed name Maria Lilina on line 41 to incorrect name Maria Liliana. There was no valid reference to this change. Google search shows that the name Maria Lilina is correct, also there is a Russian article in Wikipedia with the proper name: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лилина,_Мария_Петровна Petrukhina (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continuing your edit warring and feud with Petrukhina. If you continue in this way it will not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. You have persistently edit warred on multiple articles, and indulged in a feud with another editor. You have ignored all attempts to discuss your edits, and have never made any attempt to explain or justify what you have been doing, nor indeed to communicate with other editors in any way. (As far as I can see the only edits you have ever made to any talk page have been removing comments from this page without responding to them, and you have almost never used edit summaries, despite repeatedly being asked to do so.) You evaded your last block by editing without logging in, and continued your disruptive editing. Since the expiry of your last block, the only editing you have done, apart from two removals of content from this page, have been reversions of edits by the same editor you have edit warred with in the past, which led to previous blocks. You have been given several chances, and have been clearly warned that continuation of this behaviour would lead to an indefinite block. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by individual editors repeatedly pushing their own preferred versions and ignoring other editors. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]