Username of this editor is HOBOPOCC and please do not switch on your imagination playing with it's meaning and transliterate it somehow. You may show on your fears due that

Welcome!

Hello, HOBOPOCC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! --El1604 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Holodomor 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. — Richard BB 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I making war edits along? Why have you given your notice of war edits me only? There is at least one more "worrior" - Andrux - who is engaged in the war for third day with much more "undos" then three already - and I haven't noticed any caution of yours on his talk page. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Andrux is simply reverting to the consensus version. — Richard BB 16:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so, if I would revert "the consensus version" — it wouldn't be "war edit"? I'm new in en-wiki. Please clarify for me. Thanks in advance! HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Holodomor. 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: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Two editors blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong administrative action of yours. Opponents not only ignoring arguments given on talk page and RS added to the article, but left posts full of Ad hominem, but not arguments — (u|Iryna Harpy)) I mean, And you gave wrong explanation of Administrators' noticeboard: I DO NOT "deny the Holodomor as a Ukrainian-targeted famine". I was just adding information proved by RS that Holodomor was part of genertal famine happened in USSR that year. HOBOPOCC (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I'm logging this notice in the arbitration case. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After one block for edit warring and all our previous discussions, you decided to revert again at Holodomor on December 2. Can you explain why you should not be banned from the topic of the Holodomor? You've opened an WP:RFC at Talk:Holodomor#RfC: Holodomor as part of general famine in USSR of that period on 2 December but so far nobody agrees with you. This is not the normal definition of a consensus in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted my text because (a) it's content confirmed by RS of the highest rank (Stanislav Kul'chitsky - is top Ukrainian historian for Holodomor) and (b) because nobody of my oponents gave grounded responds on talk page why study of Kulchitsky should not be treated as RS. As far as I understand rules and common practice, if no any reasonable objection given during ample time - that means that proposal to be adopted. I was waitting for more then 2 days since my last grounded post and nobody gave me an answer - [1] — only Lvivske asked some clarifications. My oponents rejecting my proposal simply because they «do not like it». That's not valid argument. Besides, nobody of my oponents provided any other RS, reviewing historiography of Holodomor and achiving any differ conclusion then Kul'chitsky. So, we have unique RS providing some description on historiogrphay of Holodomor; nobody can provide some alternative RS or give any reason why proposed on said RS addition not to be included into the wiki-article. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• And why do administrators keep blind to continues personal atacks of editor Iryna Harpy? Her contribution to the discussions - personal attacks only! Just look — she changed my user name: NEWRUSS! Some of her previous posts toward her oponents hereunder: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Please stop such behavior of her! HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again at Holodomor without a clear talk page consensus you may be blocked or topic banned. 'Nobody gave me an answer' is not a reason to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Iryna Harpy?HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iryna Harpy's talk page comments are OK. Expressing concern about other editor's neutrality is well-accepted. If you don't want to be referred to as NEWRUSS you should make that clear on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder more and more about local rules. Now it's clear for me why en-wiki is dying slowly. If editor on the talk page of an article (where she should discuss only matters how to make article better) wrotes Well, well, Shervinsky. You have been a busy propagandist, haven't you?... and now admin of en-wiki tells me that «this is OK», I do not have any dreams about it.HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask her to withdraw 'busy propagandist', but Shervinsky's lack of good faith is easy to see. He appears to be an edit warrior with a nationalist motivation. The problem of nationalist editing is what caused WP:AC/DS to be created in the first place. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked her and twice on different occation and she made laught on it. Anyhow, you gave me good lesson of behavier appropriate in this project. I will follow local standarts of communication. HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a strange understanding of appropriate behaviour and Wiki standards, when you blame other editors as "non-neutral", "...do not like to deal with pure scince", "be more pleased with politicians" as well "eagily belive to politicians".--Andrux (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention going 2/2 with skewing original source material to prove a point.--Львівське (говорити) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• HOBOPOCC, as regards my derogatory comment to Shervinsky on the Triune talk page, I am fully prepared to acknowledge that it was unacceptable, so shall post my apology there. Note, however, that the apology will reflect my rationale at the time, albeit feeble justification for uncivil behaviour. Also note that it is not your call to demand an apology which Shervinsky did not ask for, and wouldn't have deigned to do knowing full well that we'd already established a bad rapport traceable to his/her actions prior that particular comment. Keeping a distance from those you have conflicts with until tempers have cooled, then coming back bearing an olive branch by way of assisting with the content they have already added and trying to find grounds for working collaboratively, is the best method I know of to reach the ultimate objective: a balanced, well written and informative article for readers. I have not since touched any of the articles over which Shervinsky and I had disputed the content. I'd rather leave a messy article for a few months than run the risk of an edit war. I will resume editing those in a constructive manner by starting with translations of non-English sources, double-checking the sources and tidying the badly translated and written content of the articles themselves.

• With regards to my naming you as NEWRUSS, I am not quite certain as to what it is that I am to apologise for. HOBOPOCC was your choice of user name and you are working on Ukrainian articles. You have even declared that you know that all of the users contributing there know Russian. Even without knowing that your home wiki is Russian Wikipedia, it is instantly recognisable as Cyrillic for NEWRUSS(IA), although the translation into English doesn't begin to do justice to the extent of the negative connotations. You have stated on your (Russian) home page that you selected the moniker because you live in Novorossiya defining yourself as part of a movement which rejects the nation-state of Ukraine. Had I chosen a username such as DOWN-WITH-MUSKOVY or UNITED-UKRAINE4EVER and started working on sensitive Russian issues in what can only be interpreted as a bombastic manner, I doubt that any Russians or Russophiles (however neutral they are) would feel receptive to my changes or my engaging in relentless pushy, indiscreet activity on the talk page. The same would apply to working on Polish articles with a username of UPA-RULES, or Islamic articles with a username like CHRIST-SAVES. The fact that no one has pulled you up on this, other than by implying it, merely attests to the good faith and tolerance accorded you to this point despite your best attempts to push the envelope. Your choice of moniker is nothing short of bad taste and I have no doubts that you are well aware of this. You're merely taking advantage of the fact that it is not instantly identifiable to an English language editor or reader.

• Finally, Wikipedia policy and guidelines are, when it comes to common sense, malleable. Constructive editors are reticent to report anything which they should be capable of resolving between themselves. If an editor with an excellent track record makes a formal complaint, you can be certain it is because there doesn't appear to be any other recourse. Given that Shervinksy already had a track record for 'bold' (but not cautious) editing
  -- including blanking (particularly the removal of cited sections he/she doesn't agree with without any discussion on the relevant talk page); more blanking with no edit summary and leaving unwarranted, uncouth edit comments when escalating to an edit war; usurping an existing article (which was being actively worked on by other editors and leaving no edit comments nor attempting to engage with anyone on the talk page until being pressured into doing so) by blanking, deleting citations and overwriting the existing article directly from Russian Wikipedia; using highly biased language in the content and leaving a POV mess of the structure of the article before abandoning it entirely --
  it became impossible to differentiate between user Shervinsky and Shervinsky's content, the two having become inextricably linked as the whole and driven by a blatantly biased agenda. Under such circumstances, what you have construed as being personal attacks were the result of attempts to actually open some form of reasonable discourse (as is documented on the Name of Ukraine talk page). Bringing up the ongoing issues of consistent content bias and the practices (read as agenda) of the user in question in a formal complaint should not merit punitive measures against me for 'attacking' said user per se. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Holodomor. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Andrux (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• бу-га-гаHOBOPOCC (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HOBOPOCC. If you don't withdraw your request here about legal complaints any admin may decide to block you indefinitely from Wikipedia for making legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• misunderstanding. I used word «legal» in wrong meaning. Will correct it now. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. At 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine you incorrectly changed (although the number of 4,000 members of the rally was well sourced) the number of pro-Russian demonstrators from the correct number of 4,000 to the incorrect number of 10,000. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to User talk:HOBOPOCC, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop attempting to remove your Wikpedia talkpage messages that are nothing but a friendly warning and an attempt to improof Wikipedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is within policy for you to remove almost anything from your talk page per, Wikipedia:OWNTALK, but please note "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. " CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the recently-closed edit warring complaint about this article. If you make any further reverts of this article that don't have prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]