User talk:Chicca70

Grigori Grabovoi

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. 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 Grigori Grabovoi seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you a human or an A.I. bot?

It seems you have not consulted the reliable sources I cited, including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Please prove that you are a capable human user. Chicca70 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent template

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but adding a nonexistent template in a non-English language isn't the way to go about it. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Grigori Grabovoi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Zsinj^Talk 20:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that it is wikipedia itself that has long accepted destructive editing and vandalism towards a living person, Grigori Grabovoi, effectively violating its own rules. Chicca70 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Grigori Grabovoi, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that it is wikipedia itself that has long accepted destructive editing and vandalism towards a living person, Grigori Grabovoi, effectively violating its own rules. Chicca70 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2023 (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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the page for which I requested immediate deletion is 90% made up of false and defamatory news towards Grigori Grabovoi, to whom the page should be dedicated. All the times that reliable and neutral sources were included, according to wikipedia rules, they were deleted, and the version full of slanderous sources was restored. It would seem that wikipedia is very hard on Grigori Grabovoi, repeatedly ignoring and violating his human rights, protected by international treaties and by the laws of the states in which wikipedia itself operates. This is very serious, and not without consequences. I ask wikipedia to delete this page immediately. Chicca70 (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

I would ordinarily just say that your request absolutely says nothing about why you should be unblocked, but ... for the second time tonight, I am confronted by someone who uses their unblock request to demand that we delete a page.

You are in no position to make any such request remotely like that. A blocked user requesting an article be deleted is the Wikipedia equivalent of a mosquito floating on its back down a river screaming "Open the drawbridge! Open the drawbridge!" — Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2023 (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.

UTRS appeal #68215 is now closed. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought my edits for which I was blocked were constructive, probably as a new wikipedia user I don't have much experience in this Chicca70 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have to convince us you now understand what was wrong with your edits and convince us you won't make such edits again, if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2023 (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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I better understand what kind of sources is requested in wikipedia, I promise my future edits will be constructive Chicca70 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2023 (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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

if you give me the chance to edit, I'll put a link to a reliable source2A01:E11:5:8260:CD1E:179D:1A2C:4DC7 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - see below. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 15 February 2023 (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.

Only the blocked account can make an unblock request. If the IP (not logged in) editor above is the same person as the Chicca70 person, then you need to log in to your account first before making another request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2023 (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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

if you give me the chance to edit, I'll put a link to a reliable source Chicca70 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been told that you need to demonstrate that you understand the rules before we will unblock you. You can still edit this talk page, so you can set out what changes you want to make, and what sources you would use to support them, right here. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:14, 15 February 2023 (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).

Chicca70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, thank you for your reply. I found a newspaper article reporting the news that the charges against Grigori Grabovoi were cleared by a ruling of the Court of the Russian Federation on April 11, 2018. This source helps make wikipedia better, and allows Grigori Grabovoi's page to have a more neutral point of view. Here are some excerpts from the newspaper: "Russian Supreme Court annuls arrest of 'healer' Grabovoi after ECHR ruling." "ECHR awarded "healer" Grabovoi 2.4 thousand euros for the years he spent in a pre-trial detention center." "The ruling follows that of the European Court of Human Rights, which in September 2016 awarded Grabovoy compensation of 2,400 euros for the more than two years he spent in pretrial detention awaiting trial and sentencing." "The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation today overturned a total of 26 rulings involving the extension of Grabovoy's preventive detention measure and the denial of custody appeals," a court spokesman pointed out." Here is the link to the paper, as wikipedia does not accept primary sources such as the court ruling, this is a secondary source: https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html Chicca70 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed block evasion. Strengthening this to a checkuser block. This user has demonstrated no intention of abiding by our policies. Yamla (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2023 (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.

Thank you for outlining what changes you would like to make to the article. Unfortunately, this does not address the issue that caused this block, which was your repeated removal of information from the article without consensus from other editors. In an edit below, please outline:

What actions caused you to be blocked (hint: I just stated above why you were blocked) and why these are against Wikipedia policy
What will you do in the future if you want to remove large amount of content from an article, or if your edits are challenged?
Do you have any personal connection with Grigori Grabovoi, or are you paid by anyone to edit this article? If so, you have a conflict of interest and will need to outline how you will comply with Wikipedia's COI policy (a short version of this policy is at WP:COIE).

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your reply. I answer your question: 1. I understand that I am be blocked because I repeatedly removed information without consensus from other editors, this is against Wikipedia policy because it is a collaborative project, so an editor has to do his best to reach consensus. 2. In the future, if I would remove a large amount of content from an article, or my edits will be challenged, I'll have to discuss it before with other editors in the article's talk page, avoiding edit warring, and as a last attempt, I'll make a reqest for help to resolve the dispute. 3. No, I have no personal connection with Grigori Grabovoi, and I don't be paid by anyone to edit this article. I simply have some knowledge on this topic, and I want to share it, in order to make Grigori Grabovoi's page more balanced, complete, and neutral. If a Wikipedia page is improved, then the whole Wikipedia will be better.

I would like to take advantage of your kindness to ask you a question. What should I do if the article in question does not respect Wikipedia's fundamental principle, the neutral point of view (NPOV)? I can quote from this Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

I will appreciate your suggestions on how to act.

I hope I was able to express myself, many thanks for your kind offer of further assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicca70 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicca, if you want to attract Z1720's attention you need to link to their username and sign your post with 4 tildes ~~~~ in the same edit. Cabayi (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind help @Cabayi Chicca70 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720 did you see the above ?Chicca70 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for whomever reviews this block, they've been evading it for a while to keep disrupting the talk page in question. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two secondary source have to be showed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Grabovoi .

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20230406202647/https://www.mk.ru/social/2018/04/16/voskresitel-mertvykh-detey-grigoriy-grabovoy-poluchil-pravo-na-reabilitaciyu.html

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20230406201819/https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html

In order to change the shameful fake version you strive to maintain, contradicting wikipedia own rules. In spite of all your effort, Grigori Grabovoi has been acquitted by 26 charges, by the verdict of the Russian Supreme Court on April, 11 2018. And no one could change this, not even wikipedia. Chicca70 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]