User talk:Lokalkosmopolit

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bokros package (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shock therapy

Green League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rainbow coalition

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Warning

Refrain from posting on my talk page again please, you are involved in this disagreement so do not post warnings for your own good in this context as it makes you look hypocritical. Kindly refrain from making such edits to Sinn Féin without discussing them on the talk page first. We operate by consensus and myself and Scoláire will address what arguments have fro including populism. Please know that Sinn Féin do not describe themselves as populist. The term is only used in Ireland as a pejorative by political parties and politicians against their opponents. ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reminded you that you will be block in case you revert once more. What SF describes themselves to be and what not is besides the point: we use classifications by third party sources. And it clearly isn't used only as a pejorative as the serious sources show. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Please be mindful of this, as editors are often blocked for 1RR violations on such articles....

The article Provisional Irish Republican Army, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on the article talk page first. Thank you.

Valenciano (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism vs. Right Libertarianism

There is a lack of consistency between the Republican Party (United States) article and the Conservative Party (UK) article regarding these words in the infobox, despite the factions described being ideologically almost identical. Whenever I changed "right-libertarianism" in the Republican article to "libertarianism", someone undoes that and changes it back. When I change "libertarianism" to "right-libertarianism" on the Conservative article, the same happens. Can a consensus be reached for the sake of consistency?--Jay942942 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer keeping 'libertarianism' without the addition 'right-', as the default meaning of libertarianism is the right-wing tendency. Left-wing libertarianism has not enjoyed any comparable electoral success AFAIK. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Even Know Who I Am!

I have spend hours on Euromaidan related articles the past months... Also on making them NPOV. You have failed to notice that... That is OK! But don't start accusing me while you have no idea who I am or what I stand for! Please behave yourself Civility. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murder of Lee Rigby may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

what Islam is.” He and Adebolajo had to be manhandled out of the courtroom by security guards.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10662836/Lee-Rigby-murderers-sentenced-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Unite Against Fascism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. This edit[1] which you said was "a bit about the kind of antifascism the UAF supporters practise" is getting close to vandalism - the fact that years after speaking at a UAF even someone goes and murders someone has nothing to do with the UAF Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop template abuse. All additions apart from Tatchell were directly sourced, now added source for the latter, too. Content dispute is not vandalism. You know it as well as I do. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly template abuse, a warning about NPOV including your edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Unite Against Fascism 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. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For moving it back :) USchick (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit with your account

relax please, I simply forgot, of course i have one. would just one sentence under commentaries be ok with you? 134.117.231.49 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Venezuelan Protests infobox

I was wondering if you could look at the changes I made to the info box on the article and see if it's better. I showed sources for the causes of the protests and updated a few things. Thanks for you help on the article! --Zfigueroa (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with this user WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war

You're not collaborating, you're accusing me denying the truth (which is wrong). I'll stop, let's revert to the edition before the quotes, and then we'll amend the article together. Adding quotes doesn't work (I've explained that at the talk page). I have nothing against using those quotes, let's add them in context. And at last, "Kim Il-sung on Juche" is not a concept, it does not fit there. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll readd those quotes soon, OK? ... I'm just going to find some third-party sources; they probably fit great in the "History" section, or a new section on Juche's view on communism (as a mode of production - if they've written anything special on it that is). Good? --TIAYN (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-instate those quotes today, if you think there is a better section for having those then add them to this section. I am not for having all kinds of quotes in articles per se, but currently the article is too skewed to the view that Kim Il Sung's ideology is not Marxist at all and the quotes present support this view. The quotes are needed right now because they show that Kim Il Sung devised his ideology as a sort of Marxism. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, Juche was devised by Kim Jong-il and Hwang Jang-yop, and that it was created as a creative application of Marxism-Leninism is already mentioned; Juche (or Kimilsungism, the same thing) was developed as North Korea's version of Maoism. This is mentioned. --TIAYN (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, problem. The quotes you've used, a translation of the Russian edition of On the Juche Idea, is not translated "correctly" - when I mean correctly, I'm not saying its not correct. I'm saying that its not used in the English edition On the Juche Idea (I'm not gonna read that book, I have a life).. Plan B, I write a section on "Vanguard party" - Its probably one of the "most" Marxist-Leninist things they have (that is, the idea remains more-or-less unchanged) + their view on well, other things.. I'll find other, "more communistic quotes" to replace the others (or find the "correct" quotes)..--TIAYN (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations I used come from an official edition (published in Pyongyang). Perhaps there are different books with the title On the Juche Idea. Regardless of that, this shouldn't be a problem. As long as the translation from Russian into English is correct, then it should be acceptable. There's no applicable rule AFAIK saying that North Korean titles published in Russian shouldn't be used. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a mistake though: the author of this book is not Kim Il Sung, but Kim Jong Il, there's a specific transliteration system in Russian that doesn't perfectly match with the Western system and I mixed up the two 'beloved' leaders. The book is available for download here [2]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new section, "The inevitability of socialism" (and added a new quote);

The struggle between socialism and capitalism is the struggle between the new and the old. That the new emerges victorious and the old perishes is an immutable law of historical development. This law will never change, though the victory of the new may be attained only after experiencing twists and turns ... Our era by no means suits imperialism; it is an era of historical change in which imperialism is on the brink of ruin and the people of the world are marching forward boldly along the road to socialism, the road of independence.

Its a small quote, but it was surprisingly little written on the subject by third-party sources.... I can look through it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have a couple of hours to self revert as I need to go out for a meal. If you haven;t then you get reported for edit warring and face an almost certain block. You call. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. No-one is 'certainly blocked' for making just two reliably sourced edits a day, even if these are reverts. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A slow edit war against three editors is still an edit war. Report made here ----Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Unite Against Fascism and personal attacks at Talk:Far-left politics and own talk page. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I disagree with that block. I never broke the policy of not exceeding 3 reverts per day. I merely reverted twice and my edits were well-sourced and neutrally worded. No-one offered substantiated objections to those at talk and did not propose anything constructive, when I asked, whether there are any constructive, policy-based proposals. I admit that I reverted two times today, however, the other party - Snowded - did exactly the same thing [3], [4]. I think it is an exaggeration to call 2 reverts per day edit warring and block for that. Curiously enough, the user reverting my additions Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was not even warned by the blocking admin. Also, the justification of the block makes little sense ('Disruptive editing') - is the one disruptive who proposes reliably sourced changes, asks for constructive proposals as I did, then inserts those - or the one who simply erases reliably sourced material per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I've also started before my block a thread to get neutral parties' opinions on how to resolve the dispute [5]

Decline reason:

The definition of edit warring isn't confined to the 3 reverts per 24 hour 3RR rule. It obviously applies here, and coupled with your attacks and comments toward other editors in the EW report, I'd say you got off easy with 24 hours. Your next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 7 March 2014 (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.

Lead poisoning and the bell curve

I am very new to Wikipedia editing, so if this is not the right way to take part in discussing an edit, please inform me what I should be doing instead. Now to the issue at stake. You removed my adding to the "Responses to the Bell Curve" section of the "Bell Curve" article, a reference to an article on lead poisoning and the bell curve ("Lead Poisoning and the Bell Curve") by Rick Nevin, 9 February 2012. This is certainly not the only way the "Bell Curve" has been critiqued, but I think it is among the serious responses. The seriousness of lead poisoning with regard to such issues as environmental racism is also put forward in "Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution" by Markowitz and Rosner, 2002 (although I don't recall if they refer to the Bell Curve). It was also raised in "The Guardian" by George Monbiot, who did refer explicitly to the Bell Curve: see his article entitled "Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime. It seems crazy, but the evidence about lead is stacking up. Behind crimes that have destroyed so many lives, is there a much greater crime?" January 7, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export. Therefore I respectfully ask if you could reconsider your opposition to this edit. (Well, your comment said something about possibly adding the reference to the body of the article instead, so perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. But I don't quite understand how to do this. It seems simpler and more appropriate to list this reference as simply one of the responses to The Bell Curve.)Comvoice2 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a short summary of your view at the relevant talk page. The articles of the Race and Intelligence topic are subject to sanctions, so the policy is to be more careful with adding links, too. There has to be proof that the lead connections has some reception. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which is the relevant talk page and how to get there? I don't mean to be a nuisance, but I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system. As to proof that the lead connection has some traction, well, both the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control refer to the effect of low-level lead poisoning on the central nervous system, and especially on children. A report on the WHO website refers to the "disproportionately" bad effect on "poor and minority children". (See the section "Blood Lead Levels in Children" at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/plpyc/chapter2.htm#BLL In US.) I presume that WHO and CDC won't deal with things like the "Bell Curve", but Rick Nevin's direct response to the "Bell Curve" was discussed in the British "Guardian" and in the "Washington Post" and accepted by the well-known writer and activist George Monbiot. Meanwhile "Metrotimes" reports that public health testing shows that 10% or more of children in Detroit are suffering from lead poisoning. 10%, and in the 21st century. And the book I cited before refers to the role of lead poisoning in environmental racism. Since you were the one who deleted my edit, if the evidence I have cited of the traction of the issue is sufficient, could you restore it?Comvoice2 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here: Talk:The_Bell_Curve. In the upper toolbar, there's a button for 'new section'. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. That was useful. I posted the summary at the talk page a couple of days ago. There has been no response, so I am assuming that it is reasonable to go ahead and repost the reference to "Lead poisoning and the Bell Curve".Comvoice2 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey there - just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your removal of the troll's comments. WP:TPO explicitly permits removal of personal attacks and trolling. You are also probably unaware of this user's history; if I'm not mistaken, this is a new IP for the same user that repeatedly vandalized my talk page, user page, and a number of other talk pages and articles. They are not here to edit productively, though your good faith is appreciated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party

Hello! We need a couple more editors to comment on the 'centre to centre left' discussion on Talk:Labour Party (UK) and I noticed you were involved before. Please read through the discussion and give your opinion. Thank you. KingHiggins (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lubos Motl

You come back to talk page. They accusing us of sock puppet being. VladIliescu (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Ukrainian revolution

1) WP:DTR

2) You've, once again, demonstrated that you don't understand even the most basic policies here -- and in the most recent case, you don't understand even basic logic: ADDING an opinion as if were a fact is pretty much the OPPOSITE of WP:NPOV

Please take the time to actually understand the policies you keep citing. You'll note that your various self-serving interpretations of policies, guidelines, and actions have received no support whatsoever, which should be a clue that you're on the wrong track.

--Calton | Talk 22:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

..and furthermore, let's be clear about this; placing spurious warnings on user talk pages like this (which can only be placed by an administrator) and we will be back at ANI; for a different reason - to seek a topic ban for you. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For actively participating in controversial issues, but adhering WP:NPOV. OccultZone (Talk) 19:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate! Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coin notice

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.

UK Independence Party

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lokalkosmopolit. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing and treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. 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. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, your contributions make clear that you view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground and a platform from which to express your contempt for specific religious and political groups. In particular, you have consistently violated our site policies in an effort to disparage Islam:

You repeatedly attack other editors as communists or radical Islam apologists when content disputes arise. For instance, you claim that Dougweller (talk · contribs) is among "a certain number of commies" sabotaging article content. You tell Snowded (talk · contribs) to "get lost and read a bit karl marx and quran instead of edit warring" [sic]. You claim that other editors are part of a "PC mafia" dedicated to defending "Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF and the holy Sharia".
You have edit-warred in support of your agenda and been blocked for that as well as personal attacks.
You describe Islam as a "hateful cult" on an article talkpage.
On another talkpage, you write that "Apart from the small group of brainwashed people, no-one in Germany believes in the myths of tolerant Islam."
Speaking of Islam, you write: "It's not racism, when practically all people of a country (as we've seen) don't want some odious cult to spread in their countries."
Here you violate WP:BLP by making an inflammatory accusation against a living person using a poor-quality partisan opinion piece but framing its claims in Wikipedia's voice. Your edit summary ("loves islamic obscurantism very much") compounds the violation.
Here you insist on describing a group of criminals as "Muslims" even though the cited reliable source clearly describes them as "Asians".
Here you falsely claim that the source used the word "Muslims", while also dismissing the BBC as part of "cartel media" rather than a reliable source.
Here you again focus on emphasizing that the perpetrators are "Muslim" rather than "Asian", again without supporting sources.

You have been warned twice at WP:AN/I, in threads you started here and here, that your behavior was unacceptably disruptive and, if unmodified, would result in sanctions. I could go on, but I think it's apparent that you are abusing Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield and are devoted to posting inflammatory, divisive, and disruptive claims which disparage entire segments of the community. This behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and principles, and undermines the atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. As a result I have blocked your account indefinitely. You may appeal the block by using the {{unblock}} template or by following the instructions here; please take the time to review this guide to appealing your block if you choose to do so. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will most definitely respond to that and in some detail so I will need a couple of days. I strongly suggest that you add all of your evidence you claim to possess (″I could go on″). So I suggest you consult it with the editor(s) who sent you those diffs (I mean, the odds are you didn't compile it yourself as we probably haven't even met here). Right now I consider your ban that avoids any community discussion that such a drastic step would normally require as a politically motivated attempt to silence criticism.
The ″Asians″ part (you have no less than 3 diffs for this alleged violation) is the most ridiculous thing because from centre-right Telegraph (″It's time to stop using the word 'Asians'″) to American conservative sources like Gatestone Institute to muslim Imams to Hindu rights groups, it is being pointed out the same thing - that the designation ″Asians″ that some sources use, is either meaningless or worse, directly misleading. That was my original concern (for some reason you failed to list this diff [6]). Says Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation:

Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims’. In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia.

(Here copied from Daily Mail but it's been widely cited elsewhere). So where was the violation? I never changed citations where the misleading term was used, that would be falsification. However, there is no excuse for ″Polish death camps″ style fallacies elsewhere in the articles.
So yeah, use these couple of days usefully.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to frame your appeal in any way you like. I don't have much to add to what I've said above, although I will of course respond to commentary or concerns from other editors about this block. Wikipedia's fundamental principles forbid patterns of editing which focus on specific racial, religious, or ethnic groups and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. I think your editing has repeatedly crossed this line, in particular in your descriptions of Islam as a "hateful cult", an "odious cult", etc. and in your focus on associating Islam with criminality. I think the examples I've cited above are sufficient to justify your block, but I also think that anyone motivated to look through your contribution history will readily turn up additional problematic examples. Finally, insofar as it matters, I was not "sent" any diffs or other material about you, and have had no off-wiki contact with anyone about your editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordFixit (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, the resistance is increasing, after all.
It ain't me, but I fully support those IPs in their fight against rabid Islamizers, communist totalitarians and dangerous (for themselves and others) self-haters of a small but proud nation.
PS. @LordFixit:, you buffoon of the century: do you have statistics to the question, when will London have Muslim majority and hence sharia law? I mean, will you have the chance to feel yourself as a homosexual man and at the same time a willing, enthusiastic and unwavering Islam apologist what life is like for a homosexual man in a sharia kingdom? I hope you do live long enough to get this first hand experience. Both you and your buddy Roscelese really, really deserve this experience!Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments to be utterly hilarious, Lokalkosmopolit. They say far more about you than me or anyone else. What a shame you failed to edit constructively on Wikipedia.LordFixit (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit. Thank you. Ben^Yes? 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yevgeny Bertels

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Yevgeny Bertels requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. EastonK (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]