User talk:DonetskAndBack

DonetskAndBack, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DonetskAndBack! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Russian language in Ukraine, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said the lady pushing a political POV ;-)

So, tell me again how the Russians were colonising "Ukraine" in the 17th century.

Wikipedia is not a political site, nor is it the mouthpiece of Ukrainian nationalism. Were Russians colonising lands? In the 17th century, Yes, Novorossiya. Were they previously owned by a different nation? Yes, the Tatars. Were Russians colonising Ukraine when settling in the Donbass and in Odessa? Most certainly not. How those lands been Ukrainian before they were Russian? No. DonetskAndBack (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Russian language in Ukraine 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DonetskAndBack. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Russian language in Ukraine. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

An unfair block. After I received my warning, I went through the talk page, and found that the formulation everyone agreed on by consensus was "the territory that is now Ukraine...", and my new edits were neither reverts nor edit warring, but rather neutral edits to make the article more neutral (which I explained on the talk page). My new edits were not reverts to my old edits, but rather an attempt to make the article look more in line with the consensus achieved on the talk page. It's a shame that the admin who blocked me probably didn't bother to look at my actual edits to see that it was not a revert. DonetskAndBack (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Enforcing a consensus is not a valid reason to edit-war. I don't see much of a consensus anyway. Huon (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2016 (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.

.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for resuming reverts after expiration of your block for edit-warring, as you did at Russian language in Ukraine. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]