User talk:96.241.218.72

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (96.241.218.72) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Svoboda (political party). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• 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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring as you are here or you may be blocked from future editing. Also, please refrain from making bad faith accusations and inserting original research. Львівське (говорити) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• Also familiarize yourself with the WP:3RR 3 revert rule, as you are currently in breach of and may be blocked for further reverts and content blanking.--Львівське (говорити) 23:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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 are now at like 5 reverts and are reverting other impartial editors. You've been warned.--Львівське (говорити) 00:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Svoboda (political party). 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all I have full right to defend myself before being blocked. There were less than one hour between the posted accusation and this block. Here is my answer to this accusation I've tried to post as the response *The above diffs are showing that these reverts are not reverts but honest attempt to rise te quality of the article to a higher academic level. I removed only a personal opinion of anonymous Polish author and replaced it by two English language references providing facts instead offering opinions. Moreover, I asked the Wikipedia community to provide qualified opinions about this (very POV) issue in the article talkpage. The Львівське publicly declared to be supporter of this party: 'This user supports All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"'. I am not accusing him for anything, just pointing at the facts.

Decline reason:

I see four clear reverts within a 24 hour period. You were warned prior to the last revert and aware of the policy. In the future, please resolve your talk page discussion in lieu of simply edit warring with other editors. Kuru (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

• Tadeusz Olszański is not an "anonymous Polish author", he's an academic, political scientist and a senior fellow for the Centre for Eastern Studies. This makes him a reliable source. Please refrain from misleading statements to prove a point. Also, as I've explained to you, accusations of bad faith WP:COI editing are in poor taste.--Львівське (говорити) 01:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Nacionalni stroj, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jonathan C. Armstrong (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, this warning can be ignored. GB fan 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. }}

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The same administrator who blocked this IP opened a sockpuppet investigation case here . The case is currently open. I posted my comment there as a proof of my innocence here. My defending comment was removed by the blocking administrator and this IP was blocked. In addition I'd like to say that this IP is used at least by two people. Stevan Hristic, Java Virtual Machine, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk articles user contributions do on belong to me. Thank you.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any post made by a banned user may be removed on-sight. Although multiple people may have used this IP, the consistency of topics, grammar, and behaviour (not to mention technical reasons) show that the probability of you being the banned user is high enough for this block to stand. If a banned user wants to edit Wikipedia, then follow the right steps - otherwise, they just make it worse for themself the panda ₯’ 11:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No one shall be blocked because of simirarity of grammar and interest in the same topic as a banned user. My behaviour is in the line of Wikipedia rules. Every acussed person shall have full right to defend himself before any decision about his edit rights. The prosecutor is not the judge. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a court of law; our standards and policies indeed allow us to identify you as a banned user based upon your similarity of grammar and interests. We have neither prosecutors nor judges. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Risker, the checkuser and administrator who closed this case in favour of the accused wrote this explanation,

"I am at a complete loss for this one: The IPs are obviously not connected (and one hasn't edited since April), the Aries no Mur account hasn't edited since 2013 (and it's completely unclear why anyone would think it is connected to the IPs), and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Also, please refrain from tagging IP pages; in 2014, IP addresses are so rarely dedicated (they tend to be reassigned regularly) so the next person who gets assigned that IP address is going to be treated like a sockpuppet instead of a potential new editor. Declining CU because there's really nothing to check. Risker (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)".
Kindly please, remove this baseless block from this IP.

Decline reason:

So, firstly, this IP has been blocked because of concerns that it is being used for block evasion. And secondly, Risker has made a comment about how this case has been handled. As you have already indicated, this IP is being used by more than one person. In this context, it's perfectly possible another user of this IP is evading a block. Anyway, from my perspective, the easiest way to resolve this situation is that you follow the instructions in the box below and create an account. PhilKnight (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Joy (talk · contribs)

---

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.