User talk:Media Sapiens

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).

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

Request reason:

I dont get what's going on here. I'm not M.V.E.i.

Decline reason:

it appears that you were blocked because you edit the same articles using the same style and created this account less than 24 hours after his last account was blocked it would certainly appear you ARE him...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:48, 11 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I repeat my request. Read my talk page. I have signed on that day because on that day a user wrote on the Ukrainians talk page something i wanted to answer to. And explaine me the writing style thing! I'm not M.V.E.i. i dont inderstand what it means.And by the way, i just noticed. When a person is blocked his IP is blocked for 24 hours authomaticaly, thats what i have here. Could you check the hour this user was blocked? If the time i signed in is before the block on his IP was over, i even theoreticaly cant be him.

Decline reason:

User:Log in, log out was blocked indefinitely at 17:41 7/72008; this account was created about 17 hours later. Will you admit who you are now? And even without that admission, the imperfect English and misspellings give you away. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2008 (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.

Here you can see that discussion. The date i signed in was later that day it was started. Media Sapiens (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Administrator. You yourself said my account was created 17 hours after he was blocked, while the IP authomaticaly gets blocked for 24 hours. You should really think before you write. If you'd know math you would count that his account had 7 more hours to be blocked when i created my account.

Decline reason:

Ah, that always-successful tactic: insult the administrator. Yeah, that'll get you unblocked! Anyway, what could have stopped you from going to another IP (library, internet cafe, something like that) and creating the account after your last sock was blocked. You think you've come up with a good "gotcha", but in fact you're just showing us why we were right to ban you. This is your last request on this account and I'm protecting the page now. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (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.

Comment: I'm not at all clear on what is going on here, but user Media Sapiens is not mentioned on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i. page. — Athaenara ✉ 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I attempted to include this on the requests for checkuser page, but I'm not sure how exactly to do this. I would like this case clarified, since I was engaged in a discussion with this user when the banhammer fell upon him for allegedly being a sockpuppet. Did any admin bother to warn him/her or to check IP before accusing Media Sapiens of being a sockpuppet and blocking him/her? Just curious. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.V.E.i.[edit]

You are signed in a day after a notourios sockpuppet creator called M.V.E.i was blocked again! I might be seeing gosts but if you are M.V.E.i you better cleaned your act up a lot or I will report you! If you are completly new then I'm sorry to disturb you! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who was blocked when, i didnt know there are blockings here, but i signed in a month ago, i simply forgot the account. If there are any crashes with dates i dont know how it happened, because i signed in esspecialy to answer the guy on the Ukrainians talk page. If you'll notice, me signing in, and that guy writing what he wrote, is the same date, 8th July. Media Sapiens (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the "guy" he/she was referring to. I apologize if I inadvertently caused him/her to be blocked, but I felt that allegations of Ukrainian prejudice were an important issue and needed to be discussed, as it might add to people's knowledge of things Ukrainian. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petliura assassination[edit]

That's subject to debate: [1], [2], [3]. Schwartzbard did indeed commit the atrocity, but may -- may -- have had Soviet backing, even orders, for his crime. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. it's called a conspiracy teory and it cant be taken seriously. "May" is a word of imagination. In real life, no-one ever found any prove the Soviets gave him the orders or where involved in any way. Scwartzbard did that heroic deed because 15 of his family members died in pogroms. Thats the whole case. He was of many who wanted to do it, he was of many who had a reason to do it, the huge number of streets after him in Israel proves it. The Soviets being involved? Conspiracy theories. I never liked those games. You can claim ny the same arguments Petlure was taken by a UFO. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible that Schwartzbard had zero links to the Soviets. Perhaps that is even the mainstream view. But it is not the only view among serious historians, some of whom believe, based on the research they have conducted, that there was Soviet involvement in the assassination. Their claims ought not to be dismissed as "conspiracy theories", but given the due weight they deserve. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, just maybe, the historians have a legitimate reason for writing what they did. (I haven't looked that closely at the research leading to their speculation, so I can't say for sure.) It's certainly more likely the Soviets killed him than his being abducted by a UFO. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For you there is no shadow of a doubt; for me there is, which allowed me to make the rather simplistic suggestion that "the Soviets" killed Petliura. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Chmielnicki[edit]

You wrote: "Hope you know about the huge number og Jews who worked at the Polish households while there's were occuping and surpressing pure Ukrainians. Ask Bogdan Khmilnitsky about it." Um, yeah, but this occurred hundreds of years ago, and the Jews weren't responsible for that situation, the Poles and the Lithuanians were. The Jews mainly wanted to gain the support of the political establishment because they were tired of being kicked out of Christian area after Christian area for not being Christian or for being "foreigners". Having succeeded with Poland, they continued to support the Polish establishment, through the merger with the Lithuanians and the conquest of more territory. Yeah, Poland-Lithuania was wrong in not giving Ukraine a voice. But what Kmielnitsky did about it was to go about killing everybody, which isn't going to make too many friends among groups that were the victims of that massacre. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You should really sign in.
2. Here is the archived discussion. They deleted it.
3. They were kicked out from Christian lands. The question is what were they doing there in the first place. If someone climbs in your house, a stranger, even the law alows you to throu him from the window.
4. Many of the kicked out, infact, most, didn't have anything to do with relegion or ethnicity, but were simple economical clashes. Like the property conflict with the Greeks in Odessa.
5. They lived on a Ukrainian land, if they didnt like anything they could leave. Them saying it's not their fault they went to worked with the poles is the same thing as those who collabarated with the Nazis saying it's not their fault they killed Jews. And it's exacly the same case. Media Sapiens (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ok, I signed in. Happy?

2. As noted.

3. In many of those lands, they were there before they were even officially Christian, and they could settle there because they were Roman citizens. (Note: The Romans weren't above letting strangers stay in their midst. The fall of the Roman Empire may well have been delayed by a few decades to a century by the Roman practice of letting barbarians settle peaceably in some of their outer lands.) In later years, Jews came to be seen as foreign or strange, because of Christianization. Furthermore, what laws allow defenestration?

4. Evidence of that?

5. Not the same thing. The Nazis coerced people, first of all. Second of all, while there were righteous Gentiles who saved Jewish lives by defying rules and regulations in the Holocaust, those Gentiles did so in an air in which there was a more obvious (to them) distinction between right and wrong. The Jews of Lithuania-Poland were mainly engaging in economic practices, and I doubt they saw anything wrong in engaging in economic practices. They probably didn't think they were committing too much harm by supporting Poles over Ukrainians, and they weren't committing genocide. What they did, of course, was discriminatory and unfair, but it wasn't the same as collaborating with Nazis. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They knew and many faught at the Polish siade at war. And who worked for them? Who were there slaves? Ukrainians. So it was exacly like collaborating with the Nazis. They knew to who the land originaly belonged, they knew who occupies it, and they knew what side they have chosen. Russian Empire territories were never part of Roman Empire. And the fact that they were there before christians is not important, because a country belongs not to a relegion but to an ethnic group. They weren't there before those ethnic group but cape later to economicaly thriving places. Media Sapiens (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Chmielnicki did was equivalent to a genocide. I don't see the same occurring with Poles/Jews. As for the Russian Empire, many of its territories belonged to the Mongols before they belonged to the Russians (and Mongols were neither Jewish nor Christians), and some Russian territories (including a few in modern day Ukraine) once belonged to the (Jewish!) Khazars. Furthermore, when a people comes to a land and settles there for hundreds of years, it practically becomes their land as much as it does the original settlers (whomever they are). Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Chmelnicki did was something needed to be done. To kick the occupants out, and showed that collaborators will be punished. By your logic when those who collaborated with the Nazis were killed that was a genocide. The DNA test shows that Ashkenazi Jews are NOT related to Khazars because they dont have Turcic blood in them. It doesn't metter how much you sit their. If you came to someone's house, doesn't metter how much you stayed their it wont make it yours. And dont involve Christians. Relegion isn't playing a role here, it's an old trick. Ethnicities is what talked here. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant i edit?[edit]

I'm sorry, why cant i edit? I'm not any M.V.E.i. and i dont get the what's going on here. I protest against it. Media Sapiens (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the sysops disagree, and they have access to IP check. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they'd have one they would see that i'm not that guy. Media Sapiens (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, they say you fail the duck test: "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.." Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion above i understand your simply biased on me. Did you enter the history at the talk page of M.V.E.i.? Do you know why he was blcoked? Because he cursed Arabs after Israel was bombed. He was an Israeli. Do i look like someone who curses the whole world once there's a terror act in Israel? You fell. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was low. Your not an administrator, you haven't read what i wrote here where i prove i'm not him. It's sad they give biased people like you to edit. You dont have the right to delete my whole talk page. Media Sapiens (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]