User talk:Moscowrussia

Welcome!

Hello, Moscowrussia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arctic Night 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michael Cherney. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arctic Night 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cherney

Hello. I understand that you are concerned with the inclusion of Michael Cherney's status as one of Interpol's wanted. I understand that you may be upset at this, but the fact is, Wikipedia is here to provide facts that can be backed up by reliable sources. If Interpol says that a person is wanted for money laundering, and the person has a Wikipedia article already, there is no issue with inserting that material into the page. Arctic Night 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no substance that Cherney is wanted by Interpol. Moscow Russia

Hello, I am pretty sure that an official wanted notice at the Interpol website would qualify as 'substance'. Interpol would be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Arctic Night 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cherney may be wanted for questioning. He has not been convicted of any crime. Lastly, to place mug shots and to place this one element as the primary issue of a bio is discriminatory and illustrates the continued harassment that Cherney suffers from in having successfully filed a lawsuit against Oleg Derispaka. User talk:Moscow Russia

Hi Moscowrussia, I have removed the mug shots from Cherney's page. It appears that their licensing may not have been suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia in the first place, an issue that I may have to deal with later. Do you think that this is an acceptable compromise? I have removed the mug shots, and as a compromise, would we be able to leave in that one sentence in the lead about Interpol? I noticed that you added a bit about 'wanted for questioning' by Interpol. I'm not that familiar with international criminal justice processes, but I was led to believe by the Interpol website that an arrest warrant was issued. Do you think that it would be a good idea to include this in the article? I think some more editors should get involved so we have more perspectives on the matter. I'm glad we've been able to discuss this issue in a timely fashion! Arctic Night 14:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, acceptable compromise. Thank you. Moscowrussia (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I realize you are new, discussion is the way things work here, repeatedly sticking something into an article when another editor feels it is excessive will only get you into edit wars and also will not have the desired effect of keeping your desired content in the article, things work better here with discussion and agreement, simply having a citation even if it is gold plated does not mean that it is a good thing to put in an article, we need to take care what we put into articles and the articles of living people are especially sensitive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be new to editing at Wiki, but I can assure you that I am not new to professional news editing. If we have more than two credible sources and Reuters and WSJ are among the most credible in the world, I kindly suggest that it sticks.Moscowrussia (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

nothing sticks here everything changes from day to day, please take your time, read some of our guidelines, perhaps start with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with how Wiki works. I thank you for reaching a compromise with me.Moscowrussia (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Moscowrussia. I did reach a compromise with you - I would agree to remove mugshots (which have possibly incorrect licensing information) and you would leave in the parts on Interpol, etc. However, you must still adhere to our neutral point of view policy. Although I am not going to revert your changes as I don't want to get dragged into an edit war, I would highly recommend that you listen to the advice of other editors... "Victim of harassment and illegal wiretaps by Deripaska's BazEl" is not entirely presenting a NPOV. Arctic Night 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• You have again inserted your POV on Depraska, I would appreciate as there is dispute that you sign into your account so that if a report is to be made, edits can be clearly attributed, you seem to be repeating this behavior at other articles, as I suggested please take some time to read our policies, you may not like a public person but at wikipedia as editors we should leave our personal likes and dislikes at the door, we are here to protect all subjects of our articles and this is one of the things wikipedia is determined to do. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Oleg Deripaska, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is not "original research" and is cited as a credible source. You are attempting to whitewash a bio on Wiki which defies NPOV. Moscowrussia (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to replace the correct neutral wording as repoted in the citation, if you revert to you POV again I am going to report you. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to whitewash and vandalize the Deripaska bio, I will report you and await what other adm have to say about direct cites from the WSJ and Reuters.Moscowrussia (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No where in the cite does anyone directly says that he has as fact clear links to orgaised crime, there is no evidence so they can't and we cant also and you changing the header to links to organised crime is also presenting as if fact, please stop inserting you personal opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More Michael Cherney

Your recent edits are problematic. I reverted the first edit because, as stated in the edit summary, you copied the source article almost word-for-word, which is not permitted. Even if you disagree, do NOT call my edit "vandalism". I reverted your second edit because a report on a conversation, without more, is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Cherney. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. 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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no edit war. The Israeli daily newspapers Globes and YNET have confirmed all content from PRNewswire. Enjoy your coffee John. moscowrussia Moscowrussia (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an edit war if you insert the same edits 4 times running in less than a day, reverting 3 different editors in the process and describing their efforts as "vandalism". Perhaps your changes the sources is enough to make your edit palatable; were it me, with a 3RR template pending, I'd have taken it to the Talk page before again unilaterally inserting it. Let's see what the other editors have to say. JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I'm not going to bother templating you, but in a considerable number of your edits you accuse editors that are making good faith contributions of vandalism. This is not cool. Just because you disagree with an edit it does not make it vandalism, throwing around the word can alienate editors and damage what is meant to be a collaborative project. Please keep this in mind in the future. Rehevkor ✉ 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

I believe that the edits you made to the article Michael Cherney in a 24-hour period on February 6 and 7 violate the three revert rule. I have therefore filed notice of your edits on the the three revert rule noticeboard. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring in violation of the three revert rule. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For continuing to edit war while sockpuppeting as internationalcriminallaw (talk · contribs) I've changed your block to 48h. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Cherney, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Cherney, you may be blocked from editing. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Cherney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Michael Cherney. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Michael Cherney. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 you are vandalizing the Cherney bio under the premise that it is "poorly" sourced. Would you please be so kind as to explain to the Wiki community as to how The Jerusalem Post and Reuters are poor sources? Moscowrussia (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Cherney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have a history of poor contributions to this article and have been blocked for it in the past. I already started a discussion the article Talk page, but you have not responded to it. Instead, you insist on labeling my edits as "vandalism" and posting unhelpful comments on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To User:Bbb23 You insist on removing sourced facts from the Michael Cherney bio? The man was cleared of all allegations of being related to any Maifa by the Swiss court. You are creating an edit war. Please stop. Moscowrussia (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

The material you added was not based on a reliable source. Please don't try that again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. Try that shit again and I'll block you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review - we are using reliable, published sources. Please use civil dialogue without threats. - Moscowrussia

Your source, ripoffreport.com, is not a reliable source as that phrase is used on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your last 2 edits. They don't comply with WP:RS and WP:BLP. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Jewish Internet Defense Force 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. RolandR (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. 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.  Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)