User talk:109.252.78.57

June 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Favonian,

Undoing smbs contribution without proper arguments is regarded vandalism and edit war regardless EnWiki, Ruwiki or any other Wiki it is. I have contributed 3 posts after more than one month of their existence in the Talk Page without any dislikes. I am a pro historian, pro editor and pro journalist.

Mordencarfan whose vandalic censorship I revert does not write any arguments other than pov push. As a historian I know that the most convincing post consists of sources themselves without any comments at all. That is what I have written. No povs, just facts and figures.

For example, the first post is just updating the 21 year old figures authored by the same person from the CDMA in 2001 without deleting them. May there be any arguments against such a contribution taken from a respectful Novay Gazeta with its Editor-in-chief being the latest Nobel Prize winner? May it be regarded a pov push?

I have done what admin MelanieN requires. The three posts of mine to the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union have been unchallenged in the Talk Page by anyone for more than one month. I added them to the Article yesterday just to find them removed by Mordencarfan without any reasons enclosed safe for a five-year-old argument of pov push by an obvious Kremlinbot Woogie10w.

The reasons he safeguards defrauded data by Russian General Krivosheev, as he describes, is that the Western historians like them and do not want to be disillusioned.

That sounds like an order to the science of history not to develop.

Two of my yesterday posts have nothing to do with the condemned (by Woogie10w) table. And the third post (a table) is not identical to that condemned by Woogie10w 5 years ago. It has been published on a respectable Russian scientific site Демоскоп Weekly regarded as a reliable source.

Kindly save my contribution from vandalic censorship. Let the editors discuss the content and produce sound arguments first.

Otherwise you are doomed to support the late chief ideologist of the Russian Army General of the Army M.A. Gareev's words “You are not supposed to know these figures”. He said that in a live talk show of Vladimir Pozner “Времена” ("Times"), defending defrauded Krivosheev’s casualties figures.

The present Article is pushing these defrauded figures to its readers with some of its editors likely being on the payrolls of the Russian Defense Ministry.

I prefer to disclose these facts. That is why I'll have to revert any reverts without arguments given.

Kind Regards,

Vladimir, a Russian historian and journalist Въ 109.252.78.57 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

---