User talk:AlbertPenfold

Recent edits to Vladimir Plahotniuc

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edits may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Hello. 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 Vladimir Plahotniuc seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. XXN, 20:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Providing clarity with subsections does not strike me as non-neutral. These are helpful markers to allow larger sections to be broken up into smaller sections, allowing readers to more quickly identify the information they are seeking. Please explain how sub-sections relate to neutrality. Much of this information was moved to a section labeled "Controversy" which seems to suggest that the material is debatable in terms of facts; this section is long and generally copy-editing would involve sub-sections.

I encourage you to review other sections and subsections of other political and business figures for an understanding of Wikipedia fair use. For example, Ramzan Kadyrov, also has subsections and further sub-sub sections related to controversies, accusations, and other issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold (talk • contribs)

All your contributions to that article consists of addition of controversies and questionable poorly sourced material. Your sub-sections are irrelevant, bad and un-necessary; the section content is added mostly in chronological order, and not by subject; you are putting those libelous headings just to draw attention on them. Do not transform that article into an attack page! Read the policies and don't break the rules. Don't make comparison with other articles that suffer from the same problem, but do compare with featured articles. --XXN, 22:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. While I do not agree with your statement that the sources were "poorly sourced", I respect your position and have revised these with citations from the New York Times, which I trust you will deem acceptable. Further, I request that you clarify your understanding of the word "libelous" -- as a lawyer, I assure you that nothing I added could be deemed libelous in British, Moldovan or Russian law.

AlbertPenfold Thank you for your contributions. There are my explanations why a have Undo your contribution.

This statement that you highlight in the top of the section "Interpol has been monitoring Vladimir Plahotniuc since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Plahotniuc denies this.[105] Other articles have gone further, suggesting Plahotniuc is connected to Russian organized crime.[106] These charges have never been formally brought against Mr.Plahotniuc. The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."[107]" was mentioned already in this section
the fact that you give titles of different accusation that in your opinion are important, gives the sensation that your goal is to denigrate the Subject
you give another denigrating statement "Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution. and you provided an article ^[1], I didn't find this statement in the article, so it is an original research, so it must be immediately deleted.
the same with this statement "Such accusations have been further advanced by a German media investigation which noted his original business stemmed from forcing young females into prostitution while he was head of a home for neglected youth in Moldova in 1991" you provide a reference ^[2] that have anything in common with the subject, this is what i have read from the article you give "The post-Soviet Russia was characterized by drastic impoverishment of large sections of the population while at the same time enriching a small functional clique. Putin stabilized the state and allowed his actions to be sacred by the Orthodox Church". Please be careful when you add such information, especially that this is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikilaj (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update October 30, 2017

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure what you do not find in the source, but I added one more NY Times article for trafficking women; meanwhile, the quotation I provide about trafficking is taken directly from the Daily Beast article.

Regarding subheadings, this is because the section "controversy" is far too long, it needs to be broken up. Having worked in encyclopedia projects (published and online), this is standard operating procedure. The goal is most certainly not to denigrate, and therefore the heading is only mentioned as "accusation of" rather than "female trafficking" alone, which would imply that it was a proven fact. It is not proven, but it is an accusation that has been made multiple times and has been reported in English, Romanian, and Russian. It is also not designed to improve the subject's image. The same is for interpol. When I included the subheading of the Edelweiss Foundation, this is neither to make the subject look positive or negative, it is a fact, but is necessary to break up the larger section.

I have removed the section on the German investigation; I re-read that article and did not find that information; my apologies. However, this was a typo and I will reintroduce it as soon as I track down the original source. For now it has been removed.

AlbertPenfold I read the article provided from NY Times: it's evidently that you have not a neutral position, You have selected just the information that is mean to denigrate the subject. In the article is written "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged.", but you just selected "Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution" what is that, Original Research or Act of Vandalism. Please be impartial and do not denigrate, your personal opinion is subjective. If you add once again the unnecessary titles or unfounded information, You will be blocked. Please to sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tilde, thanks Wikilaj (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have on multiple occasions included multiple sources to back up that statement. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge or the subject of this page or Moldova history understands that the statement regarding Plahotniuc having been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution is factually accurate. You and other users have systematically deleted sources and citations and I strongly recommend you cease this vandalism. You are doing a disservice to users. Even one of Moldova's top journalists has reported repeatedly on this and I tracked down a quote in English (since this is an English page) referring to this: "“We interviewed officials, who told us that in the 1990s he owned a sauna, where he provided businessmen and even diplomats with young prostitutes; Plahotniuc kept a collection of videos to blackmail people and push them to certain deals." I will add this back to the page.

References

^ [1]
^ [2]

Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Jeremydas (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

Thank you very much for the "mark" and importance that you assign to my activity on the page, after your words I started to understand the importance of my inputs for the page, and because of that most probably you are being completely out of the good ideas, now you are launching such a ridiculos statements, which you actually repeat. If I would repeat your actions, then, for me it is simple to state that YOU are then once who is paid to denegrate the person image, coming out of "extensive evolution and implication" in developing the encyclopedia. Next, I am coming back to wikipedia! Please review when you have some free time my reasonings from the discussion page! By the way, I see that you abused extensively by the fact that here you can't be sanctioned for the calumny and attack to the person, but please be more reserved, because you became "funny" by your attacks.--Jeremydas (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful tone

This is supposed to be a professional platform, Jeremydas, and it would benefit the overall discussion and content if you maintained a professional position and tone. To refer to someone's statement as "ridiculos" [sic] and accusing someone of being "out of the good ideas" [sic] is beneath Wikipedia. Let's make an effort to maintain professionalism (talk). Adding subtitles that are neutral in nature are not attacks, these break up the text of a long section. This is standard practice. --AlbertPenfold 23 June 2019

WP:ACDS Notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[1]

[2]