User talk:Zvesda@netscape.net

Welcome!

Hello, Zvesda@netscape.net, 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 name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - FrancisTyers 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please sign your comments on talk pages

Hi! Thanks for your contributions and welcome to wikipedia.

When you write stuff on talk (discussion) pages, please sign them. You do that by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks! Shanes 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Hi -- noticed your reverts. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but it appears to be common knowledge in Western and in Central Europe that Stalinist Soviet Union directly or indirectly helped to establish communist governments in its former satellite states. While CP in individual states had a large percentage of the vote in many war-ravaged countries, they certainly did not have absolute majority or were the strongest party in many cases. They gradually took on more powers through harassment of their opposition, deployment of semi-military paratroops or through direct Soviet intervention. The erosion of legitimate government control is was not unlike to what the Nazis did in Germany.

All of these countries were prevented from participation in the Marshall plan and the deployment (or threatened deployment) of Soviet forces in 1953, 1956, 1968 and 1981 clearly shows that the Soviet Union was pulling the strings and was meddling with internal affairs of those countries.

Now, I don't mean to pounce here on your talk page, I just wanted to represent a different POV, which I incidentally believe is closer to reality than what you are trying to keep in the Stalin article. The view you are defending is pretty much the official line the Soviets have maintained internally and externally to defend the legitimacy of those governments. Jbetak 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely incorrect. If you were to Google search "Czechoslovakia + first free elections since 1946", you would find numerous corresponding results even from the bourgeois outlets. The simple fact that you seem to fail to comprehend is that following World War II, Communist parties were dominant in elections across Europe; they received a plurality with 28% of the votes in France and 26% in Finland. Additionally, they received some 20% in Iceland and 19% in Italy. In Nederland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, they received about 11% of the vote. In concern to eastern Europe, Communists similarly performed solidly. They received 38% in Czechoslovakia in 1946, 22% in Hungary in 1947, 25% in Poland in 1946, 17% in Romania in 1946, and about 60% in Bulgaria in 1946. To repeat, the elections in these countries were free, fair, and open contrary to American propaganda. Communists were not a fringe group that "took over" these countries. Rather, following the diabolical Marshal Plan, they formed coalitions with various opposition parties that gave them legitimate authority.

[source]

The Soviet Union was not "meddling" in the internal affairs of these countries. As part of the Warsaw Pact treaty, they were legally permitted to take military activity in these countries with the consent of the respective governments. Various State and Party leaders in Hungary and Czechoslovakia incessantly requested aid from the USSR and the other socialist countries.

logging in and signing your messages

Please do not forget to log in when you edit. It makes everyone's life easier. Also, please sign your entries at talk. If you just enter four tildes ~~~~ in the end of your message, the browser will enter the signature for you. Thanks, --Irpen 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange revolution

Regarding your edit to this article, please be serious and don't waste other people's time. --Irpen 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. AscendedAnathema 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking a viewpoint. It is a simple fact that the "Orange Revolution" similarly to other so-called "revolutions" was a pre-meditated act on the part of the United States oligarchy in an attempt to isolate Russia from her neighbours and establish the sort of Nazi-like hegemony that the Neo-Cons strive for. It is common knowledge that the likes of George Soros, Madeleine Albright, and John McCain were heavily involved with the bourgeois takeovers of these countries through copious funding. Just because this is not represented in the American press, it does not render it a crazy fringe idea. These facts are reported in the Russian press. Even the "Guardian" reported these facts. Your insistence on the adherence of this fairy tale spontaneous revolution as espoused by the West is a manifestation of POV. Zvesda

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --digital_m e_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --digital_m e_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Sock puppet of User:Zvesda, which was warned about a 3RR violation, so logged out to use this account to violate 3RR. That account is blocked for 24 hours, this account is indef. blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]