User talk:Vernyhora

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Vernyhora, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to announce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome!

Holodomor[edit]

Please withhold making edits such as this one here [1]. This topic is extremely sensitive, and it took an enormous amount of sweat and debate to bring it to a loose consensus. Please review the lengthy material on the talk page. You are, nonetheless, welcome to make constructive contributions to this article and many others. Regards --Kuban Cossack 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd sound more plausible without a portrait of Stalin on your page. --Vernyhora 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol ;) There is reason why he is there...--Kuban Cossack 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines, #8: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

Also, please read the article's talk page and archives. --Irpen 00:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in Holodomor edit summaries[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to [2] -- Don't know anything about the subject? I've read more than most on Soviet History in general and I'm pretty confident in my level of knowledge. Once again, I ask that you not refer to the other editors as "trolls" and to refrain from calling people "stalinist" or anything else in your edit summaries. Namecalling doesn't help your cause and the Holodomor article, as it exists, is NPOV and became that way through a great deal of work and argument from all sides. It's not acceptable for someone to just pop in and push their own POV. User:Sebbeng 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[3] made on December 8 2006 to Holodomor[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Alex Bakharev 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor edit war[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. User:Sebbeng 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and user conduct[edit]

Hi, the strength of Wikipedia is that the community is composed by people with different opinions and points of view. So far as they willing to accommodate the policy of WP:NPOV and seek some compromise it is a strength not weakness. The drawback of this that you have to communicate with people with different images and slogans on their userpages: Golda Meir and Arafat, Mao and Pinochet, Bandera and Polish children tortured and hanged by OUN, Stalin and commemoration to the victim of Moskal' Empire. If you are really uncomfortable about that you better write to a personal blog.

If you feel that an article is hijacked by POV-pushers, try to find more neutral people to look on this article. There are tens of thousand active editors on wiki, most of them are obviously not evil POV-pushers. It might also help to provide more relevant sourced data rather then make biased edits to the headings and add questionable categories. At any rate please read WP:3RR and WP:DE so to not be blocked for the violation of these policies Alex Bakharev 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[4] made on December 9 2006 to Holodomor[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 10:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<unblock|block is the result of a cynical manipultion>> This block is a result of cynical manipulation by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who pushes soviet propaganda on the article Holodomor (and proudly himself keeps a portrait of a communist mass murderer on his page). I've studied the linked policy (with which I see the above mentioned is quite familiar [5], and as I see the Mr. William M. Connolley knows this) and as anyone can find even in the block request itself, I have not reverted more then three times during the span of 24 hours, and the linked warning was posted almost a quarter after the last edit (something the relevant administrator really should have checked). The above mentioned Kuban has also in a convoluted way insulted Mr.LuisMatosRibeiro, and myself of suckpuppetry, thus I would like, with Mr. LuisMatosRibeiro permission, request a proper procedure that will disprove those allegations, and then proper administrative actions to taken. As for the "careful timing", I frequently use the net at around this time, as I tend to get up at the middle of the night and then use the lower rates to commit what I have worked on during the day, and when doing so I also browse the web.--Vernyhora 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block appears to have expired, before our review team could respond to your request. Apologies. Luna Santin 00:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bad, but I get people do make mistakes, Mr. Connolley should have been more carefull but no need to dwell on this.

Never the less thank You very much for Your efort. --Vernyhora 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your Problem?[edit]

Look, whether you choose to like or hate me for whatever reason, that is a choice you make, and one that I really could care less about. What I do care is that at present you are causing a disruption to wikipedia. Now there are several issues involved here. First and foremost is the content dispute on Holodomor, the article has a talk page, and is on the watchlist of several users, myself included. If you feel that the current state of the article misrepresents what you think should be in there, the talk page is the first place to go. Now your views (POVs) are very polarised if I may say so, and whilst that might suit some encyclopedias (e.g. Uk-wiki), however, you must remember that this is an international and a neutral encyclopedia, and its morally suitable for it to be treated with speculation. So when someone (or even a whole country) make a statement such as it is genocide, that is something that is a statement they are responsible for defending. So far, as the article itself argues why it could classify as such, but why its not classed, the talk page of the article continues on many individual points raised by countless amount of contributors, some of the debates were heated, but that's what separates wikipedia from an internet forum, to be passionate, but to follow its guidelines, in particular WP:POINT and WP:EQ.
Next is the form that you contribute in, if you continue to edit the article the way you do so, whilst ignoring the invitations to discuss the issue, you will be reverted, warned and for repeated offenses...blocked or even permanently banned wrt WP:VAND. Remember one thing, wikiadmin are not going to be sympathetic to disruptive behaivour, regardless of the case.
Third is your taste for me, now if one reads the reason why I put Stalin up there, if the first three sentences could be less clear on why he is there then please indicate it. Although really I find it amusing, when someone puts comments on user pages such as безбожної московсько-більшовицької імперії!;), some can misinterpret it as deliberate political aggravation. Same with the reason why Stalin is up there. Although the ribbon could have been created to voice solidarity support to the Chechens, however I doubt if you are a Beslan father whose child was killed in the school, or a Terek Cossack descendant who, along with 250 thousand other Russian, Ukrainian and Armenian minorities was forced to flee Chechnya in 1990-94, and upon seeing that wikipedia allows such ribbons to exist, you will not be offended. Just like you are with Stalin. Personally I do not hold Stalin responsible for the famine, and whilst his reign was cruel, I myself do not view him as directly responsible for the purges and executions. Beria, Kaganovich, Poshtyshev and Yezhov among others are more suitable for the mass-murderer name, but not Stalin. And in particular wrt Golodomor, Stalin's authority in 1932-33 was not the same as it was in later years. You had people like Kirov, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin who still had strong authority...In other words, as the declassified documents now show (again see the talk page of Holodomor) Stalin's responsibility for the famine is much MUCH smaller than you think... Now you have every single right to disagree with me, and I do not blame you so. However that is not a reason for you to actively use my portrait of Stalin as an excuse for disruptive behavour.
И еще, как показывает практика, люди которые много вкаладывают в Википедию, в спорах имеют больше авторитета чем наоборот... Советую принять намек к сердцу. С уважением. --Kuban Cossack 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After my first interaction with mr. Kuban kazak here I have promised myself not to waste my nerves by "discussing" with him, never the less I'm going to reply here for the benefit of someone who might be reading this. No I do not hate mr. Kuban as a person regardless of how much he would like to think this is the case. The problem is that right now Russia is at crossroad and after the collapse of the soviet empire, and much like a person who is drowning will try to grasp razor instead of simply other more suitable objects available, many Russians who have choked on freedom seek salvation in totalitarian ideologies. I can not say if the above mentioned genuinely believes in those ideologies or is simply trying to spawn flamewars (keeping portraits of both stalin and a tsar, btw. one know as a particular champion of russification and antisemitism, does look very fishy, it reminds of the pictures of processions with crosses, icons and a portrait of stalin that were filmed in Russia in 2005 during the victory day).

As for the "disclaimer" I do not buy it for a minute, just as if some other troll would keep a portrait of hitler on his page and explain that "while he realizes hitlers role is open to debate and some may feel offended, he himself is not a hitlerite, he posts this in protest against the image of the Star of David, which supports the »terrorist zionist regime«". --Vernyhora 10:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernyhora, single purpose accounts whose activity is reduced to revert wars against consensus always end up being blocked. Please reconsider yor refusal to read talk and engage into productive activity. There are suggestions in "Things you can do" window at the Portal:Ukraine. --Irpen 06:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care what you think of me, and what svidomy fantasies make your judgement, but that has no place in the articles itself. I will let the admin know the next time you insert the inflammatory category and quote. This is your last warning. Once again I still urge you to rethink your strategy and discuss your problems on the talk page of the article. --Kuban Cossack 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Continued POV edit warring AGAINST CONSENSUS is equivalent to vandalism. Constantly reinserting catagories and making edits in general to such a controversial topic without discussing them beforehand, and continuing to push a POV will not make people change their minds. I wouldn't like to see you blocked for increasingly longer periods of time, or eventually banned, simply because you've contributed nothing constructive. Please rethink your actions, stop engaging in what can be seen as WP:Vandalism and also please refrain from trolling behaviors and causing disruption. FURTHERMORE: Stop making personal attacks on other editors and commenting on the racial beliefs of others with no evidence except a couple pictures on a userpage. User:Sebbeng 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Holodomor[edit]

You have made 4 reverts in less than 24 h. I suggest you to revert yourself back and argue your position on talk instead of revert warring, or I will report you as WP:3RR-violator. 3RR is an important policy allowing to keep revert warring in check Alex Bakharev 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this follows the letter I'm afraid it violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Of course you can sidestep the rule taking turns with your friends like kuban and irpen in pushing the russian version and use procedural tricks against any one who threatens it.

However it's really not really not the crimes commited by communists that destroy the image of your country per se but the atitude it shows towards. Those hideous acts, while somewhat less known in English speaking countries, are well known throughout your former domain, and trying to obscure their nature here won't be of much help. You can't set the clock back 15 or even just two years by censuring wikipedia articles. --Vernyhora 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can set the clock forward 15 years and by that point all western publications will treat the article as a massive Soviet famine, with Holodomor only mentioned in a subsection... УВЫ!Kuban Cossack 14:09, 18 December 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

block is intended to prevent cleaning soviet POV at Holodomor article

Decline reason:

I might be more willing to consider unblocking if you committed yourself to avoiding further revert wars. As is, you seem to have made almost no edits in user talk space, and absolutely no edits in article talk space. Please review the dispute resolution process. Thank you. Luna Santin 11:30, 20 December 2006 (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.

I have registered an article on the English Wikipedia to restore balance to the article about the soviet enigneered famine in Ukraine, conducted as a genocide against the Ukrainians. This article has been heavily assaulted by a small group of mostly Russian users, some of them openly declaring they're support for the criminal soviet system. I have made extensive explanations in my edit summaries (eg.: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) as well as explained the situation and pointed out sepcific issues ([12], [13]) to which haven't gotten any reasonable reply. --Vernyhora 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]