User talk:Usr lI

June 2016

Hello, Usr lI, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Théophile de Viau (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Human rights in Ukraine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
Note that per WP:BRD, content changes are discussed on the article's talk page. Familiarise yourself with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and do not use multiple accounts in order to create the illusion that you are not one and the same person. Also read WP:MEAT. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't understand what you are talking about. It looks like you are just trying to find reasons to remove relevant information.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Human rights in Ukraine.
Desist in using two accounts in order to conceal the fact that you're edit warring. Take it to the talk page of the article per WP:BRD. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM have nothing to do with WP:CENSOR. That is all. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are so obsessed with this. None of what you say is true.

On the subject of obsessing, what was the relevance of this edit? The article is about the Ukrainian parliament, not the Russian parliament. Your editing pattern is a little on the POV side, wouldn't you say? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that? Stop following me around.

I'm not following you around. You're editing articles that have been on my watchlist for years. As to what is wrong with it: perhaps you should go from article to article on Russian institutions, for example, and note words that are the same in Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Serbian, Macedonian, etc. How is it relevant? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it can be relevant. Why are you so upset over that?

Why do you keep answering questions with questions? You haven't explained why it was relevant. Why would you be so terribly upset about the idea of my "following you around" (despite the fact that I wasn't)? I'm an experienced editor, and the practice of checking edits by new users is standard, so why should it bother you? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are just harassing editors when you disagree with them on something.

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:Usr_lI reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mikhail Kasyanov. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND

Could you please stop following and blindly reverting my edits, as you already did on three pages? Note that by reverting these edits you introduce unsourced content, even on BLP pages. Note that I checked your edits because you were reported on WP:3RRNB, and this is something I edited before. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine is covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Human rights in Ukraine.

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, you may be blocked from editing.
Discussion on the talk page as to presentation is still being discussed. This content, and any convolutions on the same WP:UNDUE information has been rejected. It has been agreed that proposals will be submitted on the talk page and discussed from there. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop trying to harass me?

(edit conflict)I seriously suggest that you self-revert. There has been no significant change to the content that would qualify it as 'context added' as you claim in your edit summary. Please pay attention to the points made by other editors regarding the problems with context and submit proposals on the talk page for further discussion. Barging in with a ... so I'm back and shoving in a haphazard rework of the problematic presentation is WP:BATTLEGROUND... and this is not harassment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. You have constantly posted warnings here, when it is you who is being disruptive by rolling out excuses for removing legitamate text that you don't like.

Coalition of the ill-wishing

Hi, Usr lI. First of all, thank you for supporting my edit. This has earned you a lot of hostility from some quarters and, like me, you are now at risk of being indefinitely blocked. You have been accused of being a puppet of mine and now we are both accused of being puppets of a third editor who has been banned [[1]]. This would be laughable if it were not serious. User My very best wihes went so far as redirecting your user page to mine while you were absent.[[2]]. To justify himself, he invoked WP:DUCK. As you can check, this can be used to indefinitely block two new editors who defend the same edit. All this has prompted me to do some research into Wikipedia policy guidelines and into the editing history of the opponents of the edit, namely: Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes, Lute 88 and Volunteer Marek. They are all from Eastern Europe, as you can easily check, and they have a history of editing as a WP:Tag Team. They have also been editors for a very long time, so that our arguments will carry very little weight compared to theirs. Any attempt to streamline the edit, by removing all details for instance, will be futile. They are determined not to allow any edit that would, even in the remotest way, reflect badly on the current Ukrainian government. They say we are puppets but, to me, they have all the appearance of being Poroshenko's puppets. They say that the sources are bad and the preentation is POVish but they are very happy with assertions like "Ukraine had been labeled as "free" by organizations such as Freedom House in recent years.[1] In their 2009 report on Ukraine they stated: "Ukraine has one of the most vibrant civil societies in the region. Citizens are increasingly taking issues into their own hands..." with a reference pointing to a 2009 report by Freedom House, whereas the 2016 report labels Ukraine as "partly free" and paints a much less rosy picture. To me, this shows beyond doubt on who's side the POV really is. Unfortunately, we are both new editors and there is very little we can do. Jadeslair has offered to rework the edit and I have accepted. I think we should let him work on it since he is an experienced editor and they will have a much harder time dismissing him. As for the accusations of sock-puppetry leveled against us, I suggest that we synchronize to send each other a message at exactly the same time. This will demonstrate that we can't possibly be the same person. I am looking forward to reading your response. Cheers. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well they can accuse us of whatever. I don't care. Yes, it is obvious they are a team working together to prevent information they don't like from getting into articles. They keep on making pathetic excuses to remove text that reflects relevant facts. It does seem like they are political activists for the new Kiev regime or something like that. It is a shame, because an online encyclopedia should not be used as a tool to spread propaganda.