User talk:Sasha-int

Image Tagging for Image:513.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:513.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Titov-radio2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Titov-radio2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO 1012141

Hi, since obviously it has been found discouraging to use the vessel's project name (White Pearl is used by the shipyard's managing director, see the ref that you astutely deleted), even when the boat is not yet delivered or christened yet, please advise in the talk page, and/or amend, rename the existing article. Creating a duplicate is not a solution. Thank you for contributing. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you, I've followed this yacht in British and international press and there is no such name as White Pearl whatever someone's internal/working or rumoured code or name is (the shipyard's director was told the correct name by the presenter and is vague/confused about it). There is no such thing or naming or christening of the yacht since you read the articles in Boat international, The Times and Daily Mail all in late August, the only name they use is Sailing Yacht A, using licenced Starck photos, obviously provided by the owner. If your cat's name is Kitty, but a caretaker calls it John, it doesn't become John. The references I refer to date back to the end of August, the Nobikrug director's interview is recent (first appearing on superyacht.com in October while all international media including CNBC (in June), CNN and others use Sailing Yacht A. Furthermore, in some reports it is indicated the boat was rumoured to be called White Pearl but the real name is S/Y A. signed: user:Sasha-int) (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I donot disagree that the name is A''. She is registered as A, which makes it the defacto name of the vessel. (The only press professional with access to the shipyard throughout the build was former Boat International editor-in-chief Amanda McCracken, who used the name A when she disclosed build details and photographs in this month's issue of the magazine). The problem here is in having two articles. Deletion requests will be thrown out but by the administrators until contributors find a way to consensus. Please don't rule, please contribute signed:Donan Raven (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were numerous original articles with licensed Starck photos, including The Times, Daily Mail, Boat International and SuperYachtTimes from May to August 2015, that called it Sailing Yacht A and discussed the yacht. It is enough for an accurate reference an clearly shows the name is S/Y A. None of them mention anything like White Pearl. It is simply wrong to call an article such a name or call it two names while the latter is obviously wrong/rumour/confusion or even if it was a technical name used by someone working on it. signed: user:Sasha-int) (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrey Melnichenko Foundation

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 Andrey Melnichenko Foundation, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello Sasha-int. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Sasha-int. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sasha-int|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. What is your connection to EuroChem? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Hello Magnolia677, thanks for your message, I am not paid by anyone for those edits directly or indirectly, I have a personal concern in the topic and do not have any commercial connection to this person or his businesses, and I edited the article appropriately in a neutral language, using all references making it up-to-date and encyclopaedic. PS I will use your secondary references as you recommended in the edit history, thanks.[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Okhjon (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is false and untrue, I am not paid directly or indirectly for any edits, and I do not have any financial stake in either entity. The fact that I may have a personal interest in certain topics doesn't mean that any of my edits are biased or promoted. On the contrary, all my edits are factually accurate and well referenced, and are all neutral (not positive or negative). The parts removed had been clearly either vandalism, lacked credible references or appeared to be promoted by those who must have been paid to post negative content about the subjects of the articles (as a black PR). The nature of your comments and reversals create an impression that you may have an interest in providing negative information about the subjects of the articles. All my edits comply with Wikipedia standards and are well referenced, and you should not remove them because you have any personal bias. I am an honest journalist by profession who writes objectively on the topics of my personal interest and your edits should not go to the extent of harassment and abuse. Sasha-int (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)][reply]

Maintenance templates

As a single purpose editor, you should not be removing these maintenance templates. Please leave them so more experienced editors may review these articles. - MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrey Melnichenko Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrey Melnichenko Foundation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Melnichenko Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sasha-int Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion, as you did at Andrey Melnichenko (industrialist).

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 17:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]