User talk:GoWest8

Please do not delete factual, referenced material from pages as you are doing with Garry Kasparov. Shotlandiya 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just deleting your sourceless fantasies, nothing more. GoWest8 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No you're not. You're deleting referenced facts. Shotlandiya 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just deleting your sourceless fantasies, nothing more. That's time for you to confess it. GoWest8 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confessing anything. Shotlandiya 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's worse for you. GoWest8 13:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Garry Kasparov. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Kerotan Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit it back but I have left my comments on the talk page of Garry Kasparov again. I suggest you read them and see if we can reach a compromise! Shotlandiya 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kasparov
oh, I didn't see there was a typo. look on www.discogs.com for kasparov you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallerd (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. IrishGuy talk 01:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've inquired to the blocking admin regarding why the other editor has not been blocked as well.  Lara  ❤  Love  02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, "he-did-it-too" is not a legitimate reason for unblocking. —Animum (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate 3RR rule btw. GoWest8 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted at WP:3RR: The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. You have been warned about this before...the same behavior on the same article. IrishGuy talk 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But anyway, why me? I have many counter-arguments against his opinion and now I unable to tell it even. GoWest8 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I outlined above, you have been warned before. All you did was wait a few months and then start up with the same behavior. You knew what you were doing was wrong and it didn't stop you. Hence the 24 hour block. IrishGuy talk 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All you did was wait a few months and then start up with the same behavior - it's not true. For example, look for Garry Kasparov's discussion page. We discussed the question about policies of Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces in August with user Shotlandiya. My version was kept as a result. In three months he restored his version again and again later . I don't feel that I was wrong in this case. So I don't think that my edits and my behavour are "clearly disruptive" as you say. GoWest8 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see people who got tired of arguing with you and walked away. I don't see any level of consensus for your version. IrishGuy talk 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Did you read the discussion ? I explained every of the question clearly. For example:


 * Kasparov was questioned by FSB twice, due to 1) his performance at Echo Moskvy on 8th April, and 2) issue of United Civil Front's newspaper [21]. Where you can see Limonov? GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had cited the source, nothing more, and user Shotlandiya didn't answer to me. And in 4 months he restored again his absurd unsourced statement in the article . And now I'm guilty, right? GoWest8 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are edit warring and deleting sourced content. Stop. Should you continue, your next block will be longer. IrishGuy <sup style="color:blue;">talk 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing incorrect info which can be in the article as opinion only not fact, nothing more. Why my opponent even don't wanna discuss this question but he's willingly making complaints against me?
 * I think your opinion about this dispute is too biassed and I will protest against any unjust blocking. GoWest8 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is your last warning. The content you are deleting is fully sourced. Stop. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let me make some analyse. First phrase:


 * despite the fact they are both strongly opposed to the president's policies - unsourced.


 * Is it "fully sourced", heh? Most of clear headed persons in Russia understand that both of these parties are Kremlin-puppets. It's highly prevailing opinion among liberal community. But here we don't see any source - so, it's obvious violation of NPOV, and must be deleted as incorrect info. Can you agree with me here, at first? GoWest8 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 03:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)