User talk:Alagherii

MMM-2011

Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of Ponzi schemes. If you persist in doing so, I shall ask that you be blocked from editing, and that the MMM-2011 redirect be locked against further edits.

why are you thinking that it is Ponzi scheme? Can you prove it with references? It seems to me that you are not neutral to the MMM members

You want proof? "This is a pyramid," Mavrodi said in his appeal to the nation on his blog. "It is a naked scheme, nothing more ... People interact with each other and give each other money. For no reason!" [1] Wikipedia is not a platform for convicted fraudsters to promote their scams. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this and the article on Mr. Mavrodi will have to be locked from anonymous editing unless you tone your obvious optimism for such a private investment scheme that has been found fraudulent by a court. --hydrox (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Your recent editing history at MMM-2011 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. Zad68 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sergei Mavrodi. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violation of the three-revert rule. 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.

Giant Snowman 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sergei Mavrodi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Giant Snowman 17:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alagherii, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]