User talk:Ploughman

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!, let me know if you need any help with tables! -- feb^talk 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Criticisms of Communist party rule:

Your recent edit to Criticisms of Communist party rule (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ploughman, I agree with you that the article is horribly written and unfocused. I'd favor just as much as anyone blanking the entire page and starting a new aritcle. But the main author of the article spends considerable time watching the article daily. Because the main author makes sure little of the content is removed, the only thing editors trying to improve the article can do is copyedit the work, rather than making major changes. 172 | Talk 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Cheka page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Strothra 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit to Cheka

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ronbo76 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation at Cheka

Please check, what 3RR means. You~~'ve broken the rule~~ are near to breaking the rule on Cheka article. Newbies are not blocked, if they do not know the rules yet. Now you know. Constanz - Talk 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to User:C.J. Griffin user page and my talkpage

You may wish to be very careful about issuing warnings. Just about all your edits to Cheka have been reversed. You seem to have a problem with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view edits. You may wish to review that article on how to make neutral POV edits. Ronbo76 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this something with which you have a problem. You ought to first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. You are determined on pushing a perspective which tries to negatively portray the subject at hand instead of abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV policies. This will be resisted. --Ploughman 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Mengistu Haile Mariam

You appear to have committed many more than the 3 reverts allowed at Mengistu Haile Mariam. To prevent this edit war from continuing, now that I have warned you, you may have to be blocked from editing of wikipedia, if you ignore the warning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, but I am simply reverting controversial, partisan material which has not received the appropriate authorization to be added. --Ploughman 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about what kind of content dispute it is when you get blocked. Edit wars are not allowed, period, and will result in your blocking. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To attribute "edit warring" to one person is a manifestation of bias. No one is interested in your one-sided analyses.--Ploughman 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one constantly reverting to your version against a consensus of several other editors, and violating the 3RR policy. So from the appearance of it, no one is interested in your one-sided analyses. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor reverts like I have it is clear that a consensus has not been reached. You are more interested in pushing your POV rather than objectively analyzing the issue at hand. --Ploughman 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, when an editor reverts like you have, it is clear that you're about to get blocked... WHat POV are you accusing me of pushing anyway? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with ፈቃደ. This user is pushing a POV stance and aggressive in doing it. Ronbo76 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. You may make positive contributions on your return, but further edit warring will most likely result in further blocks. If you wish to contest the block, use the {{unblock|reason}} template, substituting reason with the reason for which you think the block is in error. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information

Please do not remove well sourced information as you recently have at Great Purge. There is no rational reason to accept Russian government sources on deaths as reliable. Fred Bauder 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the vast majority of scholars on Russian history accept the declassified archival figures to be reliable. There is no reason why material held in secret would be falsified. We are not interested in your personal opinions, frankly. Ploughman 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, verily I think he outnumbereth us, for he is Legion... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism

Once again, "Jacob Peters", you can create as many socks as you like and they will all be reverted and blocked. TheQuandry 21:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slander cannot be regarded as acceptable. I will kindly just tell you to piss off.--Ploughman 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]