User talk:Gal777

Gal777, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Gal777!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Tymoshenko

The allegation that ECHR recognized Tymoshenko was tortured is simply false, I refer you to the talk page of the article. Your claim that she is "against Russian aggression in Ukraine" is an NPOV statement that can't be endorsed as such by an encyclopedia. If you think I am wrong, try to reach a consensus with other editors. Thank you for your understanding. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the European Court says that Tymoshenko was a political prisoner.Regarding the Russian aggression, Tymoshenko's even created his battalion, which was fighting in the East of Ukraine.Please do not remove this important information.--Gal777 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gal777, are you actually the same user? Please answer honestly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation to user Lidaz. Iryna, and you work together with users:TaivoLinguist and Againstdisinformation.They removed the page with information about the decision of the Court.--Gal777 (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion I wrote about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko’s second complaint to the European Court of Human Rights has been discontinued, it has been confirmed.The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously, on 16 December 2014, to strike the application Tymoshenko v. Ukraine – no. 2 (application no. 65656/12) out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 (friendly settlements) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision is final.The case – the second application brought by the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko before the ECHR – mainly concerned the criminal proceedings brought against her in April 2011 relating to contracts for the supply of gas.

The court took note of the Ukrainian government’s declaration in which it admitted that the criminal prosecution of Tymoshenko had been politically motivated and in which they acknowledged a violation of her convention rights, and of various measures taken by the government as a consequence of those violations.--Gal777 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you are intentionally misrepresenting my discussion with you here by reverting my polite response here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me please. The fact that information on the European Court of 22 January 2015 was in wikipedia. But vandals have removed this information.--Gal777 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that the information is being removed. Reverting as many times as you have is against Wikipedia policy and you will get blocked for it. clpo13_(talk) 08:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Gal777 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: ). Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Swarm ♠ 08:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]