User talk:EatsSweets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2016[edit]

Please note that you are edit-warring in Holodomor against at least two users. It is time to go to the talk page and discuss there. New users who start editing disruptively in Eastern European topics are often blocked indefinitely at the very start, and you currently seem to be a good candidate. If you want to avoid the block, stop reverting and start a discussion at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who reverts my changes[1] in the Holodomor page without giving any reason for the undo. My changes are backed by citations and are very relevant to the article (direct responsibility for the Holodomor). If you have a personal problem with it, then you can discuss it at the talk page. Banning users for submitting relevant and cited statement without having a good reason goes against the nature of Wikipedia. -- EatsSweets (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The resaon is WP:BRD. I suggest you revert yourself now, otherwise I will get you blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have never mentioned WP:BRD before. The BRD cycle was created by two people unjustifiably reverting my edits. There was no reason given to omit the new information. Intimidating users with bans is surely not the way to collaborate. EatsSweets (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the future reference, a new section has been created at the Holodomor talk page. EatsSweets (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Holodomor 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 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna, thank you for reaching out to me. As you can see from the discussion above, this issue has been already discussed with an admin. The talk page can be found in the article's talk page already. It has been approved by the admin saying it should go somewhere else than in the lede. Reverting the edits with reliable sources is simply suppressing the historical truth. EatsSweets (talk)
Hello, EatsSweets. No, Ymblanter's suggestion that it should go into the body of the article is not WP:CONSENSUS that it needs to be in the article: he's just alerting you to the fact that it is most definitely not for the lead. Personally, I haven't engaged in any discussion on the article's talk page due to the problematic nature of the content. You do understand that this would open up a can of worms regarding WP:FRINGE theories about the role of Jewish Bolshevism in the Holodomor. While it is probably an issue that could do with being addressed in a serious, academic fashion where it is discussed as being a conspiracy theory, simply blundering into the article with the names of the organisers (if you name the highest level person in charge, you need to address the infrastructure in greater detail) is going to turn the article into a major edit war reaching heights it has, as yet, not seen... and it has been the centre of very high profile edit warring for years, so I'm talking about large scale propaganda traffic steaming through the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This information has been referred to in multiple newspapers[2][3], including Jewish ones[4], along with the academic sources[5][6] referred to in the original edit. I do not see how this information could lead to fringe theories and how this assumption should serve as a reason to withhold this fact. If it, as you say, "opens can of worms" then those hypothetical edits should be addressed instead of mine which is properly sourced. If the people of Jewish ethnicity were indeed in the position of power in case of Holodomor, then there's no reason to suppress this information.
You refer to large scale propaganda traffic in the article, however this experience is rather pointing towards suppression of facts about Jewish involvement in the Holodomor; Genrikh Yagoda was reportedly Jewish[7]. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that Zionist brigades[8] are the ones purposefully removing this information.
I will cease trying to include this information on Wikipedia, because it is being reverted on unreasonable grounds by people that have been already accused of unconstructive reverts numerous times[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. -- EatsSweets (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. I already had the feeling you're someone on the "suppression of facts about Jewish involvement in the Holodomor" and "Zionist brigades" tangent. It's not 'suppression' of anything other than WP:FRINGE rubbish you'd like to introduce. I feel quite disgusted by even touching on this kind of anti-Semitic nonsense, so I'll break off communications with you right here and now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Your complete disregard for the sources that oppose your own worldview and your complete shutdown of the discussion only underlies your personal agenda. Nothing I said is a theory, but reported facts, that's why I provided sources to everything I have claimed.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&oldid=735276730
  2. ^ LEVY, CLIFFORD (15 March 2009). "A New View of a Famine That Killed Millions". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 August 2016.
  3. ^ http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html
  4. ^ Sever, Plocker (21 December 2006). "Stalin's Jews". Yedioth Internet. Retrieved 25 August 2016.
  5. ^ Matiash, Iryna. "Archives in Russia on the Famine in Ukraine" (PDF). p. 41. Retrieved 19 August 2016.
  6. ^ Agnieszka Bieńczyk-Missala, Sławomir Dębski (2010). Rafał Lemkin - Holodomor: the Ukrainian holocaust. Polski Instytut Spraw Miedzynarodowyc. p. 225
  7. ^ "Genrikh Yagoda". Spartacus Educational Publishers Ltd.
  8. ^ "Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia". Israel National News/Arutz Sheva. 18 August 2010. Retrieved 26 August 2016.
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#warning
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Eldridge_Street_Synagogue_Restoration
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#August_2009
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Reverts
  13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Rude_reversals
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Fyodorov
  15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Blood_libel
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#Knesset_website
  17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#.22Not_constructive.2Fuseful.22
  18. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#July_2009
  19. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lute88#22_April_2016
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EatsSweets&oldid=736227455"