User talk:F aristocrat

Welcome!

Hello, F aristocrat, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Nadezhda Lamanova, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nadezhda Lamanova

The article Nadezhda Lamanova has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copying response left at my talk page in this dif here, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your conversation about YT folks and what they told you, but yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add.

Please provide motivation for deleting the information included otherwise I'll have to report your edits as an act of vandalism. F aristocrat (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi F artistocrat. I work on conflict of interest issues, which is what brought me to the Youth Time article in the first place.

Based on your edits, and this note you left on my talk page, you have a clear conflict of interest on this topic.

Hello, F aristocrat. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Please do read the links above, and please 1) clarify whether or not you are being paid to work on the article, and 2) acknowledge that you have a COI regardless, as you are representing them. Once you do, we can talk about how you should proceed in Wikipedia. Thanks. Please reply here, btw, to keep the conversation in one place. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copying reply left at my talk page in this dif to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sorry, but your edits and comments are niether correct nor appropriate. I am NOT part of YouthTime movement nor am I paid for editing this article. And I see no relation of these facts to the ability of editing this article and including correct information corresponding to Wikipedia rules.

You have not provided any examples of rules violation in the information I've included. It appears inappropriate and strange, as if you don't want it to be included. F aristocrat (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Thanks for clarifying that you are not paid. However, as you already wrote to me, saying: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add." You are acting as their agent here. The other thing you should be aware of, is that it is against Wikipedia's policies to act as a proxy for a banned user - the original representatives were banned for sockpuppeting -- so please see WP:PROXYING. What you are doing is not OK. The content that Youth Time originally wanted on their page didn't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and your are trying to add that same content again. None of this is OK here. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F, you might want to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 97#Youth_Time if you aren't aware that this article has had some problems in the past and it's probably why it was on jytdog's radar, and mine. - Brianhe (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe Jytdog I personally don't see any promotional content in this version of article, it is merely informational. And after all you are not even able to provide several concrete examples from the text that do not go along with the actual rules. F aristocrat (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that it is great that you are talking with us. This is great. So thanks for that. Second, I want to clarify... this is your talk page, and it is not for discussing article content; it is for discussing your behavior. Please deal with the COI issues here: first, please acknowledge that because you are representing them, you have a Conflict of interest here in Wikipedia. Second, please acknowledge that you are violating the WP:PROXYING policy by bringing their content to Wikipedia, after they have been banned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog it's such a great answer, honestly :D for me it's quite obvious that you can't cite any actual examples of content violation and promotional content in the new version. And relating to my own behaviour is a great way to avoid my request)))

I am not talking about content here. There is a boatload to say about that, but we first have to clarify your role here. I do this work on COI because being clear about roles changes the way people approach things. Anyway, you can deal with this, or not, as you choose. Please be assured that it is highly likely that if you don't deal with this, and continue as you were, you are going to end up blocked on the basis of PROXYING alone, and after that, not dealing with your COI. It is of course your decision. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog You're a great demagogue I see))))) Saying "boatload" without providing any examples of unverifiable information is inappropriate of you :))) in my turn, I have to remind you, that, as the rules say, users may not post any material from a banned editor "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". First, I am not working on behalf of a banned editor. What is more, I don't even know who this banned editor is. I want to add information about an international movement which I do not belong to but the idea of which I fully support. And I am not paid. Secondly, you have not provided any evidence of either unverifiable or unproductive content in the updated version of article. Unfortunately, I will have to turn to admins for their help in this case. And I notify you, that in the day's run your case of exceeding authority will be reported. Sorry :)

OK, so you are not willing to engage with me. I am going to file a case at the conflicts of interest noticeboard. I will notify you when that is done. I do wish you well; you just need to comply with the policies and guidelines here with regard to conflicts of interest and also the PROXYING issue, and you are not doing that, so things are not going to go well for you. I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

This could easily be interpreted as a legal threat, which will get you blocked per WP:NLT. Don't do that.

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is F aristocrat making repeated legal threats. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katie^talk 21:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]