User talk:Vryadly

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

David Suzuki Foundation

Thank you for your query. I'm afraid there is some confusion. At no pont have I claimed that I didn't have an opinion concerning the section in question. Moreover, I've expressed my views in on the discussion page. Victoriagirl 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last post on my talk page: I see a difference in writing that one is "fairly neutral as to whether or not the section should stay as is", and having no opinion whatsoever. Moreover, the section has since been changed, and I have made my concerns known on the article's discussion page. Victoriagirl 00:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns extend beyond those you've mentioned on my talk page. Again, I refer you to my post on the David Suzuki Foundation discssion page. I won't presume to speculate as to Sunray's opinions.Victoriagirl 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benes decrees

We only need a final version now and move on. Anyway thanks for getting involved in something so 'far away' from Canada. Squash Racket 04:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that your version (with references) would be acceptable to everyone, I just wanted to add that part on collective guilt, but it would probably make it too long. So the best way would be you adding your already presented version in the article.
"Would everybody agree with the following wording?" The sentence after that. You're right on having more specific details in the article about the decrees. Squash Racket 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Dmitry vodennikov. Thank you. Otisjimmy1 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Vodennikov note

Do you have a correct year of birth? I doubt he was born in 2008. CardinalDan (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Grigoriev.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Grigoriev.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. P Carn (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I have reported you for edit warring on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vryadly for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

First four entries cited as reversions were not reversions but edits, reacting to the notions of other users. Moreover, there was no sockpuppetry. I was editing an article without bothering to log-in, when I found that the access to the article editing had been blocked to unregistered users. Quite naturally I logged in to continue. Finally, take into account that reports on the violation was submitted by a party involved in deleting my edits

Decline reason:

The first edit, this, appears to be, at least partially, a revert of this; as the material removed in that edit was added by the IP address which appears to be yours, you would know about it. Added to the 3 reverts later on, this makes 4 reverts in 30 minutes - plenty of reason for a TRR block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 20 December 2009 (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.

Note for reviewing admin: See AN3 report listing the 4 reverts in 30 minutes, that led to the block. Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]