User talk:Dasuprmastr

has wikipedia became a dangerous propagandatool?

fist of all: YES. it has. i descovered, that there are mayor differences in the different wikipedias. like in the german wikipedia the article about bthe ukranian conflict, has the title: krieg in der ukraine -which is absolute ok, because it in neutral, it describes, the whole issue. while the english article has the title: russian intervention in the ukraine. which makes a statement, which is not to make in the title and if it is wrong. because you can say russian intervention in the crimea, but there is no russian intervention in eastern ukraine, EVEN if there might be a support, for the eastern ukrainian russians, from russia, there are no official russian militias, even if there are russian individuals there, which has to be jugded by the next generation and the future historians to make that sentence, but not by contemporary viewers, who cannot make this statement. so if one is so desperate, to blame the russians, which raises several question and which is a very dangerous way, if lobbygroups will determine history in the future... or even now, you have to split the article and make an article about russian intervention in the crimea, whcih would be right, even today, because it is proven and a neutral term like war in eastern ukraine. everything else is a one handed, not neutral propaganda. and if this title is right, obviously the german is wrong?! so which wikipedia is right????

December 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

yes, this is how it should be. it is a subjective aproach, if the title jugdes in favor of either side. history and contemporary history, HAS TO BE NEUTRAL!!! you cannot say, russian intervention, if it is not. you can say this for crimea, if you want it so deliberatly, but not for the whole war, which is still going on. that is not neutral. that war is an internal war of the ukraine, so the neutral therm ccan only be, the war in the ukraine! in the article you can discuss abput, who and where and when, but not in the title. eg the boer wars are not called the english intervention in sout africa. so by forcing this title, even if in other wikis there is used a neutral title, it is visible, that there is an agenda behind it, which is very concerning. and no, these demands are not to mention in a different board, but in the talk section of the article, to point out, that the article is not a neutral approach! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

than block me, because it is not inapropriate. i wrote the arguments and there is no response to it. the firstz argument, which was used is simply false and not appropriate for the given arguments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

you are making an edit war. there are neutral facts and there are opinions. to call an article RUSSIAN intervention, when russians are not envolved in these actions or russia is involved in one part of a bigger event, where the main actors are ukrainian, is not right. this is PROPAGANDA! i dont mind, if i am blocked, but as a person with moral, i cannot accept such an infamous impartial hate campaign! it has to be written and discussed in the discuss section or wikipedia is shown one more time, that it is NOT a neutral project, but an influenced and in several part, several users are kidnapping the platform to spread impartial propaganda. if the reward for my neutral complain is a ban, i will take it and will sleep well, that i am not accepting such a behavior. why it is NOT to discussed whether the title is right or not?! i have not changed the title, but have written a complain in the DISCUSSION section, which is there to discuss, the correctness of the article and its title itself. of course scources are needed, but for the title there is no general scource to prove that it is wrong. but there is no scource, which justifies this title either. so the story is, that in fact there were russian troops, which occupied crimea, but there are no ordinary troops elsewhere in the conflict and even if there are, they are not the mayor and only actors in this war. so when you are so desperate, to name russia, than the other actor is ukraine, so it would be a russian-ukraine war, but this would be wrong also. you dont say american intervention in korea or chinese intervention in korea, it is the korean war or the vietnam war and not american intervention in vietnam. by mentioning these examples, you should recognise, that there is an imparity. and the question is, why some want to name it just like this, when it is NOT true. you can say its a proxy war, but not like this. it is outrageous! i am not payed by russia, i am not russian, i am not even editing russian articles and i am not even editing english articles, because my mother tongue is not english, so i am not interessted in impartial propaganda, but i was shocked, when i jumped, from the german site, which is absolutely neutral, to the english, which is making a crusade and hide behind rules, when one complains and remove evething immediatly, so it cannot even discussed, by those, who are native english speakers and could mention the same failures. its a shame. if wikipedia, because this is not the first intentional diffarmation, wants to continue this path, it will turn in to a propaganda instrument, which will fail on the long term. also, there is a main failure in the system. a consensus, doesnt mean, that something is objectively right. 5 people can have a concensus that the earth is flat and one can say is a sphere, that doesnt mean, the 5 are right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have collapsed that talk page thread. Please read what I wrote in the header. Writing paragraphs of your personal views will not accomplish anything. Basically you need to state what you want changed and how English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines support that change. Are you willing to do that? --Neil N  talk to me 21:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

i am willing to cooperate, to find a solution to correct the failure. i hope it is just a failure and not an infamous agenda. what i want to change is the title. i made that very clear, although i havent and wont change the title by myself, because i am not a native english speaker, thatswhy i want to open a discussion, whether the title is neutral or not. these are not my personal view on the topic. only because russian involvment is a part of this article, so how can than the title be russian intervention? it is a war in the ukraine, which was a neutral title and most of the other language wikipedia uses the same expression, war in the ukraine or russian ukrainian war, which could be accepted to, but russian intervention is not right! the vietnam war wasnt an american intervention, the korean war neither nor was it a chinese intervention, because there were much more actors than just the american or just the chinese. so what is your proposal??? tell me why is it such a blasphemy obviously in the neglish wikipedia, to start a discussion whether this title is correct or not. this has nothing to do with a personal view, but it is a personal view of the author of that title, because obviously, he or she is so desperate, to push the readers view in a certain direction. this is not the task of the title. the title has to be neutral and the protagonists and who and where is part of the conflict is to be discussed in the article. is ww2 a german intervention in russia or in poland or in france??? NO! german wp says war in ukraine the polish wp says russian-ukrainian conflict and eg the hungarian wp hasnt even an article which contains all the actions, but deals with the conflicts seperatly, once with the crisis in crimea and the other in eastern unkraine. so i am looking for an answer, because, i wont accept, that there cannot be held a discussion, whether it is acceptable to use, such an impartial title. i will open a discussion again until i will be baned or until, there will be a discussion section. it s different story, what the discussion will bring, that is not up to me, but there is a discussion needed. lets find a solution or ban me and show me, that there is an agenda behind this and dont call it a free users built encyclopedia, if such fundemental questions cannot be raised. so to make it clear one more time: i complain about the title quality and i suggest war in ukraine or crisis in ukraine or ukrainian russian war or uprising in the ukraine. but this is up to the people, its not my job to determine this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To change the title see WP:RM. However what you wrote above is neither cogent or concise. More of the same on the article's talk page will likely result in a block. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and use that to frame your more concise arguments. Also, I believe the last move discussion is here. --Neil N  talk to me 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)