User talk:86.13.221.231

February 2014
Hello, I'm Loriendrew. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Penn Jillette, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  04:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2014
It seems that in 2014 Crimean crisis you are reverting too much and discussing too little. This is not what is expected from you per WP:CONSENSUS. Please discuss at the talk page before reverting again, otherwise your account may be blocked from editing. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To PhilKnight- That's ridiculous, just take one look at the article. Any other point of view besides the russian one would do some good. I also, didin't see a dispute except with some russian posters whom I believe are too brainwashed by their own government controlled media to even have a rational discussion, that's what happened to the rest of the editors on the article. They gave up trying to reach a consensus, and that's why it's so pro russian. Thanks for clearing that up and showing that you both have a blind eye for the obvious. I might rewrite the whole article with dicussions in the talk page at another time, but I doubt that will be productive since most of the editors there have no common sense and often turn a blind eye to any kind of information that their own media (such as RT) doesn't promote. If I don't get banned for irrelavant reasons again ofcourse

Also, I must say that I get banned for small simple edits, while several russians edit in and out bullshit (for people who don't ignore the obvious), or in other words russian propoganda (including the backwards mindset that Russia is not at all involved in crimea). If anything you should ban other editors for reverting my changes, both of whom again I remind you, are extremely biased and shouldn't be treated the same way given the circumstances of their background (government controlled media) and motive to misinterpret news to suit the pro russian view, especially that article holy shit

Complete monopoly of pro Russian editors (shitheads) at the crimea article
Please die in a fire or bugger off back to RT you fucking brainwashed vatnik retards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.221.231 (talk • contribs)
 * Reblocked for 24h for personal attacks with the talk page access revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

AN/I notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. . Seryo93 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have blocked you again for continued hostility and personal attacks which have continued since the last block was made, this time for 1 week. When you return from your block, please consider the tone and manner in which you engage in disputes.  Whether or not you have valid criticism about the content of Wikipedia articles, you should refrain from name-calling, abusive and hostile language, and accusations of bad faith.  Instead, when you do return, focus on improvements to the content of Wikipedia text by providing reliable sources and engaging in collaboration with other editors to arrive at a consensus.  If disputes do arise, and appear intractable, instead try using the dispute resolution processes available to you at Wikipedia to get outside help.  It isn't that what you have to say about Wikipedia article content is wrong (it may or may not be, I don't know, and whether it is or isn't doesn't enter into this discussion), it's that your behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop.  It would be a shame if your behavior prevented you from providing needed fixes to Wikipedia articles, so instead change your tactics and focus on content improvement rather than on attacking other editors.  If you believe you should be unblocked before the 1 week block expires, use the unblock template as you have done above, and explain why you either a) think this block is in error or b) how you intend to change your behavior so that this sort of thing won't happen again in the future.  Good day.  -- Jayron  32  19:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On wiki policies - "No swearing edition"
There is no point if you only look at my comments and pick policies to see If I adhere or didin't adhere to them.

This whole matter would have been solved If I had admin rights: pro-russians would be banned and the crimea crisis article would have been spotless.

But no, you just had to cherrypick according to the rules and nothing else. I have no patience for policy abuse, yet every person that blocked me has.

You should be ashamed, as the policies will never, ever produce a quality article by themselves. And refusing to do something about the crimea crisis article is much worse that blocking people who try to revert propaganda that the russians are faithfully and blantantly editing in.

Even if someone is harrasing users (who harass others by ADHERING to the rules)

RULES CAN BE MANIPULATED AND THAT'S WHAT THE RUSSIANS LIKE YMBLANTER ARE DOING, WAKE UP

Hi
It's amazing how they can spin doctor you to look like such a bad person for this comment. There was nothing "personal" about that comment at all. When I read it all I see is someone frustrated at the system.

Don't worry, this kind of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, it's nothing about you. Wikipedia's histories is full of people being banned and mobbed. And it's not just Wikipedia's fault either, many other websites are like this too. For example, in Conservapedia, another version of Wikipedia, it's rumoured that something got so darn bad a person committed suicide.

Jayron32 could have calmly discussed your concerns and had a nice chat with you on the go. But no.

Have a nice day. Nerdy Community Dude (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)