User talk:Reiner Gavriel

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Gavriel, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Reiner Gavriel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

What is the reason you did this? There's no reason for the hyphen to be there. Tiderolls 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I edited out the sentence (including the hyphen). I didn't mean to make it look like as if I disagreed with your correction. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. Tiderolls 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about you at WP:AN3

Please see this report, which complains about your edits of Ingush people. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Titinstrily (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Titinstrily (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No way that pretending to be a moderator and sending out these messages is fine within the ruleset of Wikipedia. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For any admins who might see this and wonder what it's about, see a previous AN3 complaint from December 2020. The person who filed that AN3 complaint, User:Akylas7, is now blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing it up. Any idea if User:Titinstrily might be another sockpuppet of him/her? Random new accounts have been started attacking Vainakh tower architecture recently, vandalising and reverting edits while being very hostile. I expect the same thing to happen to Ingush people when the semi-protection is over. Could you please look into it? Thank you. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Titinstrily is already blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veinakh/Archive. I've put some WP:ECP on Chechnya and Vainakh tower architecture due to socking, but don't see any disruption yet at Ingush people. Let me know if you notice anything in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you a lot. Could you maybe change the protection to a Semi-protection? I wanted to expand the page a bit over the next few days. Semi-protection seems to work, there hasn't been any vandalism on Ingush people by those sockpuppets due to it. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the pagelinks:

Chechnya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vainakh tower architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which one do you want to change? Chechnya has been edited by socks lately. If you want to get a change made, you can make an {{edit extended-protected}} request on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably Vainakh tower architecture. Alright will do that, thank you! Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New SPI complaint

Hello Reiner. Your name is mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goddard2000. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Искажение статьи про Ингушский народ.

Интересно, сколько наглости тебе хватает делать ложную статью про Ингушский народ, и навязывать им фальсифисированую информацию? Ты даже про свой любимый фаллический культ не забыл чех паршивый. Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't speak Russian. Please translate, thank you. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you don't speak Russian how on the God's green Earth did you quote Russian sources, e.g. falsifying quotes of Yakovlev from his book "Ingushi", on the Ingush people page. I think your privilege of editing Ingush people page should be removed.Kavkas (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you are intentionally falsifying the Ingush article on Wikipedia? as far as I know you are a Chechen, as a Muslim, are you not ashamed to expose an obvious lie? be afraid gentlemen. Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my ethnical background nor my religious affiliation matter, this is Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia. So I ask you nicely to refrain from assuming and making up theories about my background and me as a person. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not pretend to be a fool, your edits indicate this, all your actions are beneficial to the people of the Chechen nation, you do not miss reliable information, claiming that this is "vandalism" Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to make any sense of what you are accusing me of. This conversation ends here. I have to sleep, early working hours. Hopefully you will think of this and decide not to throw out accusations like this next time, good night. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak excuse, you avoid questions, your actions are unreasonable and incompetent. Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable talking to you due your hostile stance, so please stop harassing me. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingush People Page

Kindly provide referenced materials for legal reversion of Ingush people page. Remember to be "nationalistic" I need to quote the Ingush people websites and pages. However, all the references are taken from American, German, English, Scottish, Russian sources of XVIII-XX centuries. By the way you haven't contributed any referenced researched material to the Ingush People page.Kavkas (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I kindly inform you, that there is a discussion concerning edits of yours breaking Wikipedia rules, here.--HamzatCan (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner, I'm in the process of tidying up the "bare URLs" on the en.wp article Act of oath of six Ingush clans to Russia. Please see that "infopage" for why bare URLs are a problem.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vandalism and slander by the user Reiner Gavriel. Thank you.Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ingush people‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Removal of significant article content should be discussed first and performed with consensus. 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. // Timothy :: talk 00:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timothy! The discussion can be found on the talk page. Also please read my explanation in the edit summary. This was the article prior of the vandalistic edits by Kist-Dzurdzuk, a confirmed sockpuppet. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking a position, but the text removed has been in the article for an extended period of time and contains references, so it needs discussion and consensus to remove. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a deeper look into the matter, it's not as simple as it looks to you. I'm not removing any (properly) sourced information. I am removing the remains of an attempt to vandalise the page by a confirmed sockpuppet. All the information I have removed were added by several accounts belonging to one person who has done this on several articles. I ask you politely to check the edit history of the page, especially starting from 11 July 2021. The article is extended-protected, which is why the text was not removed earlier. Discussion was held on the talk page and opposing side were merely 2 sockpuppets belonging to the vandaliser who edited the unsourced text into the article in the first page. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Khamzat Chimaev. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without any disrespect, you not understanding Chechen sources is not my fault and does not make my sources unreliable. Khamzats fathers name is Khizar Chimaev, Gerikhanov is the last name of his mother. Chimaev moved with his mother to Sweden which is why he took his mothers lastname. The page I have linked lists up the family names of the village Khamzat is from. He belongs to the teip (clan) Enganoy, and as you can see, the only Chimaev family in the village is listed under that clan. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your books have nothing to do with him personally, they are general sources about Chechnya, from before he was even famous. Stop edit warring and discuss your changes on the article talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What books are you talking about? Seemingly you didn't even bother checking out my sources because the 2 books I mentioned are proof that in the year of Chimaevs birth, Chechnya did not exist as the "Chechen Republic" and was the de-facto independent Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. The other sources mention that Chimaevs father is named Khizar Chimaev, and according to Chechen tradition the son takes the last name of the father, which means Khamzat was born as Khamzat Chimaev. Besides that, the sources also mention where he was actually born, the village of Gvardeyskoye. In the village of Gvardeyskoye you find only 1 Chimaev family which belongs to the Chechen clan Enganoy. Every famous Chechens article mentions their clan, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned on Chimaevs page? I don't see what you're even trying to do. What are you disagreeing with? What is your point? All you do is undo my edits and claim my sources are unreliable because you don't understand the language they are written it. That is not my fault. Maybe you should use a translator. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources do no mention Khamzat Chimaev, aside from the one source you attempted to use to support his mothers name, which was not even mentioned in the source. You're introducing unsourced content into a WP:BLP, which is clear policy violation on top of edit warring to reinstate it. TylerBurden (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khamzat Chimaev. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. TylerBurden (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Reiner Gavriel. Thank you for your work on Rustam Azhiev. User:Ceyockey, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The sources generally mention this person but are not about or primarily about this person. The interview source does not satisfy this criterion.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ceyockey}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceyockey. Thank you for letting me know. I am not done with the article yet and will soon continue with it. I have saved several sources primarily about him and will add them as soon as possible. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Khamzat Chimaev

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Cassiopeia <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px \

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing Eastern Europe or the Balkans which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vyappiy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]