User talk:Flushout1999

Copyright violations
Per this comment, could you please fix your copyright violations on this and possibly other pages? My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would do it with pleasure, but it is pointless at this point. There is nothing left to be fixed, users in wikipedia simply delete others' edits which they dislike with the excuse of Copyvio. I learned the lesson well. I'll do the same with the others. Flushout1999 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring to keep your copyright violations - as you just did in this edit . This is your last warning. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I used quotations, as usual you did not notice. If you like make the complain and see what happens, who cares. You are actually the one who initiated edit warring with the most subtle excuses, as anyone can see it here Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow. I was the one creating and nurturing that page before your arrival. I requested The Harvest of Sorrow to be blocked so, hopefully, your WP:SNEAKY will come to an end. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you did not use quotations for the phrase I am talking about. This is your version. It includes the following phrase (without quotation mark!):

This is practically the same text as in LA paper: My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and of course you think is bad faith. I'm sorry I don't remember every single thing that I posted, just go ahead and go in a noticeboard, whatever. You are just political partisans, it is evident that your main purpose is just to omitt whatever is not according to your own personal point of view that all of this is pretty ridiculous. Why don't you show me you can write those thing in the article in my place in a better form? Go in The Harvest of Sorrow and write about the funding or about this Conquest's declaration with your own words! Show me that you don't have a problem with the fact itself! Show me that you are not a poltical partisan! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Flushout1999, please read WP:PLAGIARISM: specifically what is not plagiarism. Supplement your reading with WP:PARAPHRASE. What you have been engaging in is consistent WP:COPYVIO despite being warned several times against copyright violation in your very short editing 'career' on Wikipedia. What this speaks to is your intent as an editor... and certainly does not speak well of your contributions other than that of WP:NOTHERE. I would also suggest reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH. I am still assuming good faith on your behalf, but I suspect that you've not had enough time and experience to understand what the Wikipedia project is and what it is WP:NOT. In all honesty, the learning curve in being able to put aside our own personal perceptions and predispositions is steep and difficult. I'll offer you the same advice as I have many new editors, being that it's usually best to stay away from the deep end and learn by working on uncontroversial articles in desperate need of copyediting, citation verification: basically, the mundane parts of editing. Please understand that my advice isn't intended as condescension towards you or your potential abilities as an editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Flushout1999, "go and write yourself" is not the answer. This is your responsibility to follow all policies, such as copyright, WP:Consensus and others. If you do not, anyone can simply revert your edits. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Your recent editing history at Denial of the 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 get 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&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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, I know perfectly what is a 3RR violation. My point it was to know if this source can be considered reliable or not, and therefore be cited in wikipedia articles or not. You have been very clear on that saying: "Stop edit warring. The content is sourced" and you made clear that because of this it cannot be deleted (here:). So I have now your confirmation that this particular one is a reliable source which I can use on other articles. Thanks -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it does not make it WP:RS to be used in other articles. I've only confirmed that it's a WP:BIASED source. Being recognised as a biased source ≠ carte blanche to use the this source anywhere you choose to. The use of such sources is contingent on WP:TITLE, whether it is WP:DUE in other articles, and whether you are using it for the purposes of WP:POV-pushing. Judging on your WP:SPA editing patterns, what I'm seeing is a WP:POINTy agenda on your behalf. Be aware of the fact that it's clear that you're traversing the terrain of WP:ACDS articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes ok thanks for clarifying. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A tip about discussion
You might also want to read the essay WP:BLUDGEON. Keep in mind that no matter how much you argue, you are not going to convince some people. The only way to get consensus in such cases is to state your point, once or twice, clearly and briefly. So that others can see and decide. If you spend too much time arguing with one person, others will just WP:TLDR. I am myself guilty often of violating this insight, it is a very natural thing to do. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this tip! I was going to answer again on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, however it looks to me it's probably useless, neither I understand why he is not looking for better sources. If he could find something valuable he could write "according to.." etc.
 * I myself have nothing against biased informations as long as they are well sourced. I think it's good when it's stated clearly who affirmed something, so a reader can wonder and then understand why he affirmed that. surely I like more an article presenting many contrasting POVs but all well exposed, than an article based on omissions.
 * However I'm still really convinced I previously found myself in contrast with really biased/partisan users, it's not very easy in those cases to discuss politely and calmly.... -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people who edit in contentious areas in WP have a strong POV, and there is nothing wrong with it, provided one is open to differing viewpoints. The area is covered under discretionary sanctions WP:ARBEE for this reason. It is almost impossible to survive on WP without having a strong POV, because you have to argue the same point over and over with people who do. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not necessarily a POV. This can be strong interest in a subject, reaction to something one believes to be misinformation (based on knowledge of the subject, which is not POV) or other motivations. Speaking about WP:BLUDGEON, I usually feel an obligation to respond and explain, especially if a question was reasonable and raised in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel an obligation too, but I try to fight it when I remember that other people are also involved, and their time is valuable. Not always successful, as the long back-and-forth discussion showed. I should have cut off the discussion from my end a long time ago, the first time I said it was useless to argue. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: I believe that I have shown more than one time that I have a strong knowledge of the subjects I edited. As I said above I prefer to have the most complete and complex articles presenting many contrasting POVs but all well exposed, than an article based on omissions. In Robert Conquest and The Harvest of Sorrow I always argued that it would have been more positive to add informations instead to omitt them, I was expecting you and the others to bring additions not deletions. Someone said that my edits were WP:UNDUE, but Conquest was a man with his personal strong point of view (as he exposed here ) not a different one, you and others decided to omitt what is really unquestionable. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that many changes in your version are acceptable. However, you make changes to reflect your POV by selecting non-neutral sources and using selective quotations to justify your personal views. (that source, for example, would be fine for article The Harvest of Sorrow). Look at the first phrases in paragraphs you inserted (diff above): "He radicalized...", he "became an enthusiast of Stalin...". In addition, I think you (mis)represented his publications in open sources as a "covert publishing operation", you presented questionable claims by someone as facts ("He was also the boldest theorist of the pro-American lobby in British politics"), and you are generally trying to present Conquest as a political propagandist, rather than as a scientist and writer. Here is way forward. Try to include only the most neutral, factual and well sourced information to the page (something around 20% of your new content) and wait for reaction from other users who recently commented on the article talk page. If they agree with your changes or slightly modify them, try to add a little bit more and wait again if others agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said Robert Conquest was a "political propagandist", actually is pretty clear he was also a very influent "political analyst and adviser", as for example this article on The Spectator and these biographies   show. That's my point. These claims by you and others about what I actually think of Robert Conquest are based on your precoinceived ideas on him, so you neither took in consideration these unquestionable sources.
 * The sentences "He radicalized", he "became an enthusiast of Stalin" are not invented by me but contained in the sources. We could have discussed on the talk page how to rewrite them without deleting them. (The facts that Conquest became communist after having been in 1936's Spain and that it was in Moscow in 1937, and that he never came back in USSR after, are unquestionable).
 * "He was also the boldest theorist of the pro-American lobby in British politics", this sentence is taken by this source and it is consistent with what reported here  (support for US nuclear bases in UK) and here . See also the content of his book "Reflections of a Ravaged Century", Chapter I-II-XIV-XV, but in any case his pro-americanism and support for the "Angloshere" in opposition to the Europe and EU is present all over the book. (Chapter 1 here ). Maybe he was not "the boldest" but that he was a "theorist of the pro-American lobby in British politics", or that more simply he was a "pro-american", is again unquestionable.
 * The pdf you mentioned for "The Harvest of Sorrow" is a good source as were good the ones I used in the article itself before your deletions.


 * However, this is not the right place to discuss contents of those pages. If you want really to discuss them with me open a new section on those talk pages, and when I am logged in, we will discuss about it there. Bye -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not me who started reverting your edits in the article about Conquest. So, you have to convince other users. This is all not about your personal views, but about text you actually included in the page. "The facts that Conquest ...". Yes, I agree that you should focus on facts instead of collecting ideological labels ("radicalized", "enthusiast" "theorist of lobby"). But what does it mean he "became a communist"? Did he became a member of a Communist Party and which Party? If so, that would be a fact and should be included. Otherwise, that could be a label (just like "pro-american") and probably will be disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sources I gave? Those are the important things, and of course we can write things in a better form. Let's talk it about it in the Robert Conquest talk page!
 * I probably will not be around for a while, but can look at this later, depending on my real life business. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The communist party stuff is already present in the article, it's already specified there which party. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

DS alert
Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion
You ask on the ANI: "Why are you keeping this issue up?". Sorry, but it is you who keeps issues up. It was you who started this ANI thread, and it is you who continues bringing issues out there (the diff), even after receiving a block for forum shopping. I only responded on the ANI to your comments and tried to provide you a piece of advice on how you might be able to edit (because you specifically requested my response on your talk page ). If you do not want it, that's fine. I will not. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was just an answer to your negative comment there, as your behavior is still quite unclear to me. However issue has been archived (which is something I was expecting quite earlier, right after the block) so there is no need to discuss it further. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)