User talk:Ipadm

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ipadm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014 (1)[edit]

Hello, if you think that the article does not belong to Wikipedia, add your text to User talk:Tocino who created the article. --Stryn (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014 (2)[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stryn (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ipadm reported by User:Stryn (Result: ). Thank you. Stryn (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Luhansk People's Republic seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Civil Society app[edit]

The article Civil Society app has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hype-heavy article with no claim of actual WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Civil Society app for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil Society app is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Society app until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the article talk pages[edit]

You need to use the article talk pages [1] [2] to explain and justify your recent edits.[1][2] It is possible that if you explained your edits carefully, then the edits would stay. If you do not explain them, they will certainly be reverted very quickly.

There is already a discussion at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#DPR - terrorists, perhaps you could add to it.

For reasons I do not understand you posted messages on two users' talk pages: User talk:Stryn, and User talk:Iryna Harpy. These messages read:

"In case of your very strong position in Wikipedia you can edit articles and mark that changes as WP:POV pushing. But be careful when you do it in case of support of terrorists! The terrorists organizations like Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic is the same terrorists as the ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and when you made revert of the edit with clear definition about it - you directly supported them! There is only one Point of view possible on terrorism, if you disagree, them you support the terror"

I strongly advise using the article talk pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, but there are very important to clarify that I'm no to familiar with Wikipedia as some opponents, but the main goal that I found, that Russian Federation uses the rules and admins of Wikipedia to make the only POV. So Wikipedia began to be the war weapon against common sense. The talk pages of both articles already contains the justification of terrorist status, but editor made they changes under WP:POV. They must clear understand, that it is not a joke the done, it is a terrorism advocacy! --Ipadm (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I explain to you that you need to use the article talk pages to explain your edits. Wikipedia needs people like you; but you need to accept some advice from "friends".-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Donetsk People's Republic. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain me WHY you didn't used 'article talk pages' before editing my adds? I wrote in (undo) the direct reason: "Terrorism is they prime ideology popularized on the media. Intimidation and public torture of women visiting bars and cafe, intimidation of LGBT or Ukrainian speakers, creating and populating of scared image of Ukrainian, EU and USA peoples." why you made changes and aware me to revert your changes? Your understanding of "ideology" was litigated. --Ipadm (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I did explain my edit on the article talk page.[3] I also wrote to you here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Luhansk People's Republic. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Ipadm. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Civil Society app, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have static IP and never use a different alternative accounts! The only reason for my blocking I see is may actions against terrorism, but I made all recommendations I received from other editors.

Decline reason:

Appears to be a clear case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Checkuser found the technical connection and the behavioral evidence is pretty clear cut. only (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (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.

What is your relationship to user:Людмила Лєвих? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Людмила Лєвих is a facilitator of British Council in the programme 'Active Citizens' --Ipadm (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that I have to prove that I didn't break any rule? --Ipadm (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that wikipedia is a fair community.. that blocks an editors just for fun and take no care about an arguments. --Ipadm (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=I am not a user:Людмила Лєвих! I did nothing to been blocked! Людмила Лєвих is a facilitator of British Council in the programme 'Active Citizens' and reasons why she supported my opinion in the dispute about deleting of my article are only the question to her, not to me. I insist on unblocking only for fair play in community, it nothing about in my account to fighting for, only the truth care.}}

You're not in a position to "insist" on anything. Because your unblock requests and comments are repetitive, I have revoked your access to this page. See WP:UTRS for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]