Jump to content

User talk:AveTory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, AveTory! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Grin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarlet Sails. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergey Kurginyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Berezovsky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Kulidzhanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergei Gerasimov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikhail Tsekhanovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit. Among other problems, the defamatory text was sourced to YouTube, LiveJournal and an opinion piece by Prokhanov. Those are not reliable sources. Please follow WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What defamatory text? It was a quote from Akhedzhakova supported by a recorded fragment of the TV show. Since when Wikipedia forbids Youtube and blog references? As well as references to opinions expressed by political opponents marked as opinions? AveTory (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Prokhanov (diff above) "Akhedzhakova is covered in blood. I don't know how she still breathes in Russian blood without an aqualung". Overall, that edit (first paragraph in "political views") was an obvious WP:BLP violation. If you do not trust me, please ask someone else, preferably an administrator. Or you can ask on WP:BLPNB. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual text said "The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict", the text you quote was in the reference to Alexander Prokhanov's interview where he answered a question about Akhedzhakova during 1993. You removed this and the whole section about Akhedzhakova's political activity in 1993 (which she is famous for in the first place) and still didn't provide links to the Wikipedia rule that marks Youtube and LiveJournal as unreliable sources. AveTory (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LiveJournal is a blog. Even linking to YouTube can be problematic, see WP:YouTube. If you insist on including this text, then it would be best to ask 3rd opinion from an administrator familiar with the rule. Do you want it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean regarding Youtube, but Akhedzhakova made an appearance on "central television" during coup d'état, no particular channel is linked to it and thus holds rights to the record. I may find and add a link to secondary sources though. And official blogs by public persons are regularly used to illustrate their opinions in Wikipedia, they are even referenced in /*External links*/. Prokhanov's interview comes from Echo of Moscow. Maybe his words don't need to be quoted, but the interview seems perfectly reliable to me as far as it addresses the opponent's opinion. AveTory (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, telling something like "she expressed her support to Yeltsin government during the attempted coup d'état" [RS], would be fine. However, telling something like "she is covered in blood" [Prokhanov] is not. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I wrote in the body of the text. Prokhanov is quoted in the ref, I can't put words into his mouth. That's the way he usually expresses his thoughts as far as I'm concerned. He is still one of the leaders of public opinion on the Communist front. AveTory (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, as follows from the diff, your wrote something very different: she "encouraged the army to «protect us from the goddamn Constitution» and start storming the White House, or «the Communists will return» ... As a result of the armed conflict, from 158 to 2000 people (mostly civilians) were killed and hundreds were injured. ... The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict ever since. (ref: Alexander Prokhanov: Akhedzhakova is covered in blood....) What? My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"she attended a live TV show where she gave a speech in support of Yeltsin's actions" - that's what I wrote. "she expressed her support to Yeltsin government during the attempted coup d'état" - that's what you wrote.

"The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict ever since" - this is followed by two quoted references. The Prokhanov one is a finishing line in a rather long talk about open letters, including the signers of the Letter of Forty-Two who "demanded to finish the monster, after that Yeltsin's tanks shot the White House - all those liberals are covered in my friends' blood". Then he was asked by the host whether Akhedzhakova is also a "bloodsucker", and he recalled how she inspired tanks to storm the Palace of the Soviets the night before the armed conflict. All this is too long to quote, but it's obviously related to the topic. I will return it as a link without the quote. AveTory (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem. You are trying to prove that she (an actress!) played a significant role in 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. If that would be the case, one could include it on her BLP page, neutrally worded. But this view is not supported by any RS or by statements by any reasonable experts on the subject. Prokhanov is obviously not an expert here, although his fringe views can be included in his own BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to prove something, not me. I'm only adding documented facts from her biography and will soon add book publications in support. Prokhanov is obviously an expert as the main editor of the leading Communist newspaper since the early 1990s. AveTory (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of my comment was to warn you and explain the policy (see above). Best regards, My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

I am not sure why you insist on inclusion this poorly sourced and biased text into the BLP. I think you are generally doing good work around here. Actually, your style reminds me User:INeverCry. Do not you know him by any chance? My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC) My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is very simple. As long as you are doing good work here and respect key policies, no one (including me) will complain. If not, well, please read the notice above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This works both ways, if you didn't see my point. The way you freely remove/rewrite whole paragraphs without even checking the references first, ignore arguments, refuse to provide links to obscure Wikipedia rules, decide on your own which source/person is acceptable and which - not is unrespectful from the very start. AveTory (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I reported this to WP:BLPNB - as promised. If you are right, then community will be on your side. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you telling that you do not know User:INeverCry? My very best wishes (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I wasn't telling you anything about some user you brought up two years ago. AveTory (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again

[edit]

Misinterpreting writings by living people in a highly contentious way, as you do here may be a reason for editing restrictions in WP:BLP area. You were warned. I would recommend you to self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from and agree with 95% of your edits. But you should allow others to fix a few your edits that are clearly problematic. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always open for compromises when they are reasonable, not when you delete whole paragraphs without even checking sources first, then demand prooves and arguments from me, ignore what I write and change it to something completely different. I don't have time for that. AveTory (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? That was my edit. Not only I did not delete any paragraphs, but I rewrote the content specifically to reflect what these sources actually tell. Of course we can have a disagreement about one of two sources (the letter by Topol) because this is a primary source and not really about the subject of the page, so it should be simply removed and replaced by a better source. End of story. Speaking about your last version, you apparently are trying to insert the phrase about "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews"... My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why the letter is about Semibankirshina - because it deals with the Berezovsky's group of bankers in power. There was only one such group at the time. I didn't try to insert anything, it was indicated from the start. The rise of antisemitism was one of the visible results of their activity, in addition to the 1998 market crash, criminalisation of business and the general harm to the reputation of capitalism in Russia (all mentioned in the text). I don't approve it, I'm well aware that many businessmen and criminals had no relation to Jews, but their number among Semibankirshina was unproportional. Press, nationalists and public figures like Topol and Solzhenitsyn (particularly in his "200 Years Together" book) made a big deal of it. It's part of history now. AveTory (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you are trying to include must be supported by secondary RS that are clearly on the subject of the page. This is especially important if you are dealing with controversial comments by living people. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mikhail Bulgakov". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 March 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Mikhail Bulgakov, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lidiya Vertinskaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Voinovich

[edit]

Hey, I'm not trying to vandalise the article, I'm trying to improve it. And I appreciate the work that you've done already. If you think I was being too bold, feel free to change it back of course. But I think that several of the things I removed were not clearly referenced, I wasn't sure of what parts of the paragraphs the sources were about. As for the layout of the article, I think it's an improvement to keep his biography in one place but if you have any other ideas of course we can try that instead. Yakikaki (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. You made too many changes to the article, I wouldn't know where to start now. I'm only suggesting to return his early biography (which is described in every detail in the "Parents, childhood, Khujand, father returned" section of his memoirs, I only briefly mentioned some of the more important moments). And big paragraphs might be suitable when describing his major works, but sections that speak about different periods of his biography such as "Literary production and dissidence" and "Public activism in Russia" look like a big mess now. AveTory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yefim Gamburg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Andrei Mironov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Courage School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonid Kharitonov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2018 (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).

AveTory (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Violation of the 3-warning rule by Floquenbeam while acting in accordance to it myself. Reasonable reverts based on Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and no damage or disruption to the original article from my side. AveTory (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Laying the blame squarely at Floquenbeam's feet.ain't gonna get you unblocked. In case you missed it, you do not continue to edit war because the other user is stubborn and won't see reason. You seek dispute resolution (not sanctions against the other user), get a third opinion, open an RfC, seek mediation. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2018 (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).

AveTory (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Second request for unblock. I don't think I violated any procedures or made any damage/disruption to the Leo Tolstoy article. I consider these [1] [2] [3] comments and actions by admins to be abuse of power and find the immediate 48-hours block unjustified. AveTory (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You engaged in edit warring, and both yourself and the other editor involved were blocked for doing so. Floquenbeam's addition of a dummy edit into the article warning you two to stop the disruption, his blocking of your account, and Dlohcierekim's decline to unblock your account do not constitute an abuse of administrator tools at all. You need to stop with the finger-pointing at everyone else if you want your unblock requests to be considered and taken seriously. Wikipedia is not about winning and the belief that your version of the article was correct does not excuse nor does it exempt you from edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:17, 9 October 2018 (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.

Yes, I'm aware you think you are right, otherwise you wouldn't be reverting. Being right is not enough. You are surely aware of our edit warring rules, considering how you explicitly threatened the other editor with them. This is a continuation of an edit war from 29 May 2018. An edit war is not the way to solve your disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I talked to the user who kept repeating himself and linking to the source he found instead of understanding the Wikipedia reference policy. I know how time-consuming it is, convincing a stubborn user, so I gave up, hoping somebody else would fix the article. NO attempt to fix this obviously false transcription of Tolstoy's well-known Russian name which is supported by the very first links in the very same paragraph have been made since. Instead the lead was turned into something unreadable, with his original name being hidden in multiple "notes". And since the user simply reverted my edits and called me names again, I called it vandalism and gave warnings. After the third warning I would've reported the situation, which is another way of getting attention and what you are supposed to do instead of immediat blocking. Especially since I wasn't going to ask to block or sanction the user, but rather get an authoritative opinion. AveTory (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

So, are you going to respect WP:BLP and self-revert on the page? Ones again, the policy tells: " When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections ... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your deletions are not good-faith. You are not the first timer here at Wikipedia and you know what's included into biographical articles and what's not, we had discussions about that several times. It is not even the first time you made changes to my edit - the previous day you deleted some of my text (which I don't mind after all), but was perfectly fine with the rest. What you are currently doing is vandalism. AveTory (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked 3rd opinion here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not answering to this. Frankly, you made a lot of unsupported and ridiculous accusations about me without any proof, and continuing this discussion on 3RRNB does not serve any good purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I was merely answering your assaults. Did you reread your posts on the talk pages?
"Why his ethnicity is important?" "Why do you edit war to keep this content? Because you believe in the Jewish conspiracy" "You never edited this page before..." "Still, I would expect that anything really important about a presidential candidate needs to be published in mainstream English language sources" "User AveTory is trying to include a poorly sourced and hardly relevant information about a Ukrainian presidential candidate to his BLP page" "In this edit you insert a qualifier ("a Jew himself") for an author and an opinion that "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews". Now you edit war about something similar in the BLP of Zelensky" "There is an opinion [78] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network)"
"he inserted a really ridiculous claim that a famous actress "is covered in blood", meaning she is guilty in death of people, which is nonsense" "Yes, I do believe you do not respect BLP policy when it comes to BLP pages of people who oppose to Putin" "So, are you telling that you do not know User:INeverCry?"
You accused me of promoting Putin's, antisemitic and anti-Ukrainian-presidential-candidate statements despite I have no relation to either of those. I added Zelensky's background after I'd noticed he had an English page (added him to the KVN page first where I keep track of notable alumni). And I actually removed the Jewish claims from Akhedzhakova's (another poorly written) page and added her 1993 political position which has been widely discussed in Russia, but has nothing to do with Putin. You even wrote at first that "she is an actress, not a politician" - when did she turn into his opponent? And how is Zelnsky worse than Poroshenko for Putin, I've no idea. Grudinin was bad for Putin at the last elections, yet many people voted for him (including myself) even though he also openly stated his Jewish background. If the election wasn't rigged (which I witnessed), he would be a close second. AveTory (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no interest in discussing politics with you. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop spinning like a grass snake on a frying pan and act like a man: acknowledge that your reverts were not triggered by any of the reasons you voiced at the talk page, but were politically motivated, and revert the Akhedzhakova's page back to the consensus version. AveTory (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How on the Earth my edits were "politically motivated"? What "politics" are you talking about? I am only trying to fix the problems with content when I see them. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yevgeniy Yevstigneyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Another Man’s Wife and a Husband Under the Bed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vitaly Melnikov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe DS

[edit]

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accents

[edit]

Hello, please stop removing stresses from Russian names written in Cyrillic. Yes, stresses are not used in "normal" Russian texts, but they are used in encyclopedias. Note that Russian Wikipedia does use accents. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Elizaveta_Glinka to Elizabeth Glinka adding plot of Doctor Lisa

[edit]

You are a top editor of Elizaveta_Glinka (see Talk:Elizaveta_Glinka) I have been editing Doctor Lisa and Elizaveta_Glinka for the past week. Please watch Doctor Lisa, as top editors will not allow me to add a plot. See: User_talk:DanCherek#Sources_for_Doctor_Lisa_-_can_you_help?

Number 1

I suggest the article be moved to Elizabeth Glinka the name used in English speaking countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizaveta_Glinka#Suggested_move_to_Elizabeth_Glinka

See Talk:Elizaveta_Glinka#Suggested_move_to_Elizabeth_Glinka

Number 2

I need a plot summary that meets the draconian rules of Wikipedia. Here is what I have written thus far:

The plot is of one day in the life of Elizabeth Glinka who is the head of Fair Care Foundation in Moscow in 2012. As the day starts, Elizabeth and her husband Gleb Glebovich Glinka are going to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. Elizabeth is waiting for her three sons and close friends to arrive.
Before the party, the last thing she needs to do is drop by Moscow Paveletsky Railway Station to check on weekly patients at the Fair Care fund and to send humanitarian supplies to people in need.
At the clinic, a man calls Doctor Lisa. In a hospital in the Moscow suburbs his five-year-old girl, Eva, who is dying. The doctor on duty has to discharge Eva. Due to medical formalities the child, who suffers from cancer, is left without painkillers. Doctor Lisa agrees to help.
This request results in Doctor Lisa breaking the law for this girl.[1][2][3][4][5]

My Russian is bad so it is difficult for me to write a proper plot summary on Doctor Lisa. Thanks in advance. Metro2fsb (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Foundation.org Doctor Liza’s Fair Care
  2. ^ Doctor Lisa (2020)
  3. ^ Filming about Doctor Liza began in Moscow. Retrieved April 14, 2019. Archived from the original on April 14, 2019.
  4. ^ Glinkas return to Russia (July 21, 2008). Retrieved 18 October 2020. Archived from the original on 23 September 2020.
  5. ^ DOCTOR LIZA Russia, 2020, 16+ About the Film, Kinotavr