User talk:Sergeispb-10

Inappropriate editing

Just stop. The section of text you have repeatedly added to the Norma Stitz article violates multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, all of which you are clearly unfamiliar with. Editing the article from multiple IPs and accounts is also frowned on. If you continue to repeat the disputed edit, which has been rejected by several different users, you are likely to lose your editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Some your prosecutions not are grounded! I offered the discussion, but I do not see the argued objections. I can have supposition about the latent pedophilia's lobbying by some participants. I think can to be scandal in the case of address to FBI. I ask you to do some analysis about the errors of the section of text (if you against pedophilia).Sergeispb-10 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Norma Stitz, you may be blocked from editing. Tabercil (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Norma Stitz. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tabercil (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Norma Stitz. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeispb-10, I'm sorry that you have been blocked, but you really need to understand something:

If you make an edit, and others disagree with it, you must talk and get agreement before repeating the edit.

Please take this time to read some of the guidance pages, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Editing_policy, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

I hope, upon your return to editing, you can keep calm, and resolve problems by talking to other editors, without trying to force an edit through. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from an alternate account while blocked

You should understand that when your main account was blocked for three days, you are not allowed to edit from that account, or any other account,, including anonymous edits, for the duration of the block, except to make appropriate, civil comments on your own talk page. Editing from an alternate account is considered block evasion and is likely to lead to an extended loss of editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Norma Stitz, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop repeating controversial/poorly-sourced/disputed edits without discussing it. Post to Talk:Norma Stitz, do not repeatedly add to the article. Chzz ► 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chzz ► 07:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Advice

Hi Sergei. I've noticed your interaction with Wikipedia. A bit of friendly advice: Don't pay any attention to what any of these editors have told you so far, it is all total bullshit. Just leave this project. It is a playground for English-speaking Internet bullies. Every rule they quote is a lie made up by editors just like themselves, and broken by editors just like themselves whenever it is to their advantage. Check out the Revision history of Maria Ozawa on August 11, 2010. You will see one of your warners here engaging in edit-warring. He did this constantly, and right under the eye of the Administrator who is warning you not to do the same thing. He did this against a long-time, prolific editor, author of a Featured Article and Good Articles. He did this against one of the only editors doing serious work in one of the most difficult areas of this "encyclopedia". Now, thanks to this editor's bullying, there have been no editors doing work in it for a year. He did this at dozens of articles, and was never even warned. He insulted, discredited and removed information cited to clearly reliable sourcing, simply because he did not want to see these subjects covered at Wikipedia. He goes on about his happy way, and will be made an Administrator himself soon, as he is playing the game according to the rules-- the real rules, the unwritten ones-- not the ones that are written for the suckers. I quit contributing to this project because of the grossly dishonest behavior of editors such as the ones warning you here. Note that though there is a professed concern for the decreasing number of content-creators here, especially in the non-English areas, not one of them has asked you for your personal knowledge and experience, or if you have sourcing for any of the edits you have made, which could be used constructively here. Note that not one of them-- noticing that English is not your native language-- have asked if there were subject areas in which you could contribute information beyond the reach of the average English-speaker. Note that not one of them has offered a single word of real advice on how to be a productive editor here, but have only bombarded you with self-created rules and regulations, which are followed only by those who want to follow them-- and several editors and Administrators have gained respectability by openly violating these very rules. As someone who has worked with contributors to one of the most respected real-life encyclopedias in the English language, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you do not contribute here. It is a waste of time. On the other hand, if you want to play games with schoolyard bullies, this is the place for you. Best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you, but do not worry, so for me as man having some real vital experience some abstract opinions of the infantile spoiled children can not to becomes to serious.Sergeispb-10 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for 1 month due to BLP violations. You may contest this by putting {{subst:unblock|reason=reason here}} on this page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Leonid Artamonov, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ras, General Staff Academy and Tessema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks.Sergeispb-10 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Yuri Kondratyuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]