User talk:MiG29VN

ani

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vietnam War. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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.
And get that shit off your talk page, if I want to see porn I would not use Wiki Darkness Shines (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vietnam War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gibson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing

Do you deny editing with multiple IPs in addition to this account? Using sockpuppets or meatpuppets to advance your cause during edit wars is not appropriate, so I would appreciate your honesty about this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Equipment losses in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Armoured car

Vietnam War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Gibson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2014 (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. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Massacre at Huế. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiG29VN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm trying to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus in "Talk Page". But you blocked me, and i can't to discuss controversial changesMiG29VN (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are welcome to do so when your block expires. Kuru (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRN request

Your manual attempt to request help at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has been reverted because you did not use the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page to make that request. DRN is highly automated and manual requests not only do not take advantage of that automation, but often also break the automation for other disputes which have already been listed. However, let me note that even if you had listed it properly, it would have almost certainly have been closed immediately for failing to meet the requirement that exhaustive talk page discussion must take place first. All mediated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia require that thorough talk page discussion occur first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simo Häyhä

Please explain why you keep edit-warring extremely poorly sourced claims into Simo Häyhä. Some random dude's military website is not a reliable source, and neither is a WW2 propaganda bulletin, whether it has been quoted later by Pravda or not. The Daily Telegraph is not a "Finland source" and per SME (Slovak), "postwar findings have shown that, with great likelihood, [Surkov's figure] served as mere propaganda." Prolog (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Massacre at Huế, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== I'm sick and tired of you removing cites. I'm reporting you. == Txantimedia (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (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. Thank you.

STOP REVERTING MY CITES

You reverted AGAIN, and wrote "MiG29VN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,998 bytes) (-271)‎ . . (I saw "500 bodies" in Venemma' book (page 97). But in did't see "None of the people killed at Da Mai creek were PAVN or PLAF troops" at there, and please don't use Self-published source)"

First of all, page 97 isn't even about the massacre at Da Mai Creek. And there's no mention of 500 on that page. The account of Da Mai Creek appears on pages 139-140. I've already told you several times. I HAVE THE BOOK. I'M CITING DIRECTLY FROM THE BOOK. Google books is UNRELIABLE. Stop using it to "prove" my cites are false. Just STOP IT NOW.

Secondly, I've already explained to you on the TALK page why the web cite is legitimate. Read the DAMN RULES and stop screwing with the page. Txantimedia (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't argue with me now

I have provided EXACT QUOTES from Vennema's book. You will not find them on Google Books, because Google Books doesn't have the entire book. I also replaced the vlink cite, which you wrongly insist is unreliable, with direct quotes from the VC commander stating that they machine gunned, drowned and threw grenades to kill the people. If you remove those, I will demand that you be permanently banned from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Massacre at Huế

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Massacre at Huế. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at this 3RR case (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiG29VN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why do you block me? I always try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus (please see Talk), and I didn't revert edit if it have the valid source (I added "Verify credibility" if I doubt a source). Now, Txantimedia‎ (a two days account, i doubt it's not main account) can write everthing and nobody watch him (if he used unreliable source). "I con't have to show you shit. Get the damn book yourself and count them. And stop calling me a liar" - Now he said that in his talk page (I asked him "how do you counted this exactly figures") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Txantimedia). It's unfair. MiG29VN (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked, again, for edit warring. As noted below, you must conclude your discussions and gain consensus for your edits before making changes you know are controversial. I do not see any problem with the block, and I feel that if unblocked you would return to the same behavior. You will need to post an unblock requests which indicates you've read the policies on edit warring and dispute resolution, and give assurances that you will change your approach here. Kuru (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mere participation in a discussion does not protect you against a charge of 3RR violation. Seeing you wait for consensus would be more persuasive. At the moment, few people are waiting for consensus at Massacre at Huế but your reverts have been the most frequent in the last 24 hours. (You made six groups of edits on 26 April, and most of them seem to be reverts). You've also had two previous blocks relating to this article, so you are not learning very fast about our norms. The editors on this article face a real problem because the so-called historical data is so confusing. A slow and painstaking discussion is probably needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MiG29VN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see. (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&diff=606100326&oldid=605917037). As I said, after I was blocked, Now, nobody wtach Txtmedia, and he starting remove all of the reliabe sources in "Dispute and Denial", which he don't like. Please stop him.MiG29VN (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Regardless of what other people are or are not doing, does not excuse your own edit-warring. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block evasion at Massacre at Huế

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Since you have continued the edit war at Massacre at Huế during your block using an IP, the block has been extended to indefinite. This is now your second round of socking. It no longer appears that you have any interest in following our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]