User talk:Valery Surkoff

Welcome!

Hello, Valery Surkoff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Discussion moved into page Talk:Dmitry Polyakov. Please continue the discussion there. Also, please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Did you read the advice above?

Also please do not delete other people's comments when answering: it makes unclear what caused your reply. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Please do not revert cleanup tags from articles without fixing the problem indicated. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

One more revert of cleanup tag and you will be blocked from editing. 18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

You appear to have a conflict of interest related to the article Dmitry Polyakov. Per our policy about conflict of interest please disclose your relation to Dmitry Polyakov. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please answer the question, or you will be barred from editing the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2016 (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. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Valery Surkoff (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Dear friends! I ask you to help resolve the problem. I created a page dedicated to a musician Dmitry Polyakov which was established with compliance with all requirements. SwisterTwister checked this page, he is - new page patroller. But User Staszek Lem began doubt this page. He began writing the threats and warnings to doubt this page. Please help to solve the problem for getting rid of the attacks of this user.[reply]

Here is his (Staszek Lem) arguments:

Please don't add numerous youtube links into wikipedia articles. This is not done in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. Please add encycliopedic information. Please add references to information you added, otherwise it may be deleted at any time. Please read English wikipedia policies WP:CITE, WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Please read the rules: Wikipedia is not a directory - Watch the last paragraph: "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." - Not words about not allowed video links. User:Valery Surkoff
These are not creative works of Polyakov. These are his performances or works of other composers. In addition, pleas explain what is copyright status of the youtube videos? Linking to copyright violations is not permitted in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Performing art also is the creativity. This fact know all musicians. For example: sections dedicated to the great composers have direct links to audio files and it is not considered a violation. Youtube channel of Dmitry Polyakov does not violate anyone's rights. All rights these recordings have this conductor. If you do not have evidence of copyright infringement please do not start a discussion about it - it's not professional. User:Valery_Surkoff —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyrights: You got it vice versa. Generally we don't trust youtube that their videos with correct copyright. We see zillions of pirated american movies uploaded by Russians. Once again, let me make it clear. Yes, I may agree that the conductor has the copyrights. The question related to youtube is whether the uploader of the videos has the permission from the copyright owner. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Creativity: Once again, great composers are authors of their works. Conductors and random musicians from chamber orchestra are not. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Valery Surkoff (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue should be resolved on the talk page of the article, Talk:Dmitry Polyakov, where it's currently discussed. The gist of it is that Staszek Lem is right. And please, don't call differing opinions "attacks", as such language might be confused for claiming that the other user has resorted to a personal attack. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Okay, I'll do my best to explain some things. First off, excessive amounts of external links are unnecessary. Providing a YouTube link to every one of his videos is not proper. There is a link to his channel in the "External links" section, and that is sufficient. The other issue is removing cleanup tags. Unless you have actually fixed the issues mentioned in the tag, then it should stay on the page. Now, I don't know your relationship to Polyakov, but if you have no direct relationship then it is fine to remove the Conflict of Interest tag. Of course, if you are somehow directly connected to him, you need to disclose that on your userpage (and keep the COI tag on the article).

Regardless of who is right (as mentioned in a section below), starting an edit war with someone is inappropriate. You should discuss all controversial changes on the article's talk page in order to come to a consensus.

Finally, please make sure to sign all your posts with ~~~~ so other editors can easily tell who said what. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dmitry Polyakov. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Valery Surkoff, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD tag

Hello, I should mention that, unless you fix the referencing issues on the PROD tag I added to Dmitry Polyakov, it should remain on the page. Simply removing the tag because you don't like it is not acceptable. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Primefac, per WP:DEPROD it should not be returned. Please proceed to using the next step in the deletion process (speedy or AfD as applicable) instead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are correct. Silly rule, but I shall comply. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what you want delete the Dmitry Polyakov's page. You don't like Tchaikovsky or Brahms of maybe Mozart? This page has enough links for confirm this musician and this information and rules not forbid links in section after biography. I call on to peace my friends. User:Valery Surkoff

I do like classical music, but we have rules and guidelines about who can be on Wikipedia. At the moment Polyakov doesn't meet those requirements. As for external links, I have said multiple times that excessive lists of external links (such as the one in the "Works" section) fail, based on the "Links in lists" section of WP:ELINK. A link to his YouTube channel is more than sufficient for linking to his concert recordings. Continually reverting changes just because you don't like them will only serve to get you blocked from editing. Please discuss these sorts of issues on the Talk page instead of undoing other's changes constantly. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dmitry Polyakov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dmitry Polyakov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Polyakov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Valery_Surkoff reported by User:Primefac (Result: ). Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Polyakov conductor

I am not able to find any secondary sources on the conductor, what you need to do is add secondary sources such as news sources magazine with no vested interest giving extensive coverage to the person. You made add Russian sources also the article looks promotional the images you added are inappropriate. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear users! Article already has dozens of independent references.Valery Surkoff (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Dmitry Polyakov. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. GAB^Hello! 20:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you because you just delete the page. But I doubt that you are sufficiently acquainted with the musician to question it. If you are asked to add information - it would be fair, and you simply remove - it's not fair. valery surkoff

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Dmitry Polyakov. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. I have no opinion as of yet about the article, but please do not remove these tags. Whether I am "sufficiently acquainted with the musician to question it" is not really the issue. GAB^Hello! 20:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dmitry Polyakov

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dmitry Polyakov. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Valery Surkoff reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not want to continue the war. I want to continue to fill the pages of the new information.

Decline reason:

The block was entirely legitimate and you haven't convinced me that you understand what you did was wrong, after earlier explicitly stating that you violated no rules. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2016 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) You were blocked for merely 24 hours. Surely "fill[ing] the pages of the new information" is not such an urgent task that you should be unblocked in the meantime. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You will be having troubles with filling wikipedia with new information until you start respecting our guidelines and community. For example, you have been told not less that 5 times by different users how to sign your posts by typing 4 tildes. This guideline is for a reason. Now, please re-read the section #Welcome! and follow the advises given there, as well as what other, more experienced wikipedians, are telling you. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user "Staszek Lem" there are no "YOUR" rules. There are general rules and general principles. Do not separate me from other users and do not create the illusion that you are separate command. I have the same rights as everybody else. Dear admins please pay attention to the user phrase "...I am sorry that Putin's Russia is full of anti-American paranoia." Staszek Lem (talk) - look here: [[1]] 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)":After that, it is clear who the user is "Staszek Lem" and how he is guided by the principles - Russophobia. You opened its true face. You do not cause any respect. --Valery Surkoff (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where am I speaking about "MY" rules? Yes you have the same rights, but it seems that your interpretation of these rights is mistaken. let me remind you a Russian proverb about 'chuzhoj monastir so svoim ustavom'. Until you learn how to enjoy your rights without fighting others, you will be in a separate command. I understand that I am your enemy #1 now and you are deaf to my advise, so I am no longer writing here. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't even think about you. I created a page about the musician. Important for me kind deeds. What is your nationality? Does't interest me nationality unlike you. "Chuzhoj monastir?". You are CHUZHIE? There are yours and ours? Who are you and who we are? Wake up - it's Wikipedia not politics.--Valery Surkoff (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dmitry Polyakov. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continued edit warring on the same article as soon as the previous edit warring block expired — yes, the block that you appealed saying "I do not want to continue the war." If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, please take the time to read the policies you have been linked to. Also, if you continue to post nationalist insults against other users, you may be blocked for that: personal attacks are not allowed here. By the way, your accusation of conspiracy at the edit warring noticeboard is absurd as far as I can see. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have been blocked for 24 hours for editing the war. What do you mean - I continue? Give this fact! This is none other than the re-blocking for the same reason. What's the point?--Valery Surkoff (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen thanks for that- was just about to advise him on the inadvisability of his action! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just simple question to you: Did you read above User:Staszek Lem's massege? This user said in my address things connected with nationality? Or do you think these messages about Putin's Russia is not nationalism?--(talk) 11:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for 24 hours for editing war. This is none other than the re-blocking for the same reason. User:Bishonen probably not familiar with the editing history.Now are removed all the information from the page Dmitry Polyakov I created even a biography. This is none other than vandalism. Please unblock page to be able to add information.

Decline reason:

Actually, you have been blocked for 48 hours. The block looks legitimate. You are continuing to revert edits on Dmitry Polyakov. It's hard to see why you believe you aren't engaged in an edit war. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you support the removal of the complete removal of the biography? Which looks like vandalism.--Valery Surkoff (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2016 (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.

I'm afraid it was completely unsourced which is a big no-no here, especially for biographies of lving people. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message to all

Dear friends! OK! I accept your remarks and I am a new. I do not know much rules. I read a lot and learned a lot. Now the main thing for me is to keep from cruel edit page Dmitry Polyakov. Who removed completely biography? I have a desire to stop all of this and no longer be in Wikipedia. I hope that you will hear me and help retain article. The article is not about bad theories or bad people. Article about the musician - a good musician!--Valery Surkoff (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any connection with this good musician, since you are so interested in publicizing how good he is on the English Wikipedia? By "connection" I mean for instance if you are this person, or if they are a member of your family, a friend, a client, an employer. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have no connection with this person. I understood that I could not anything prove to you. You are not interested in article and the person, you are interested various conflicts of interest. I asked a simple question: the complete removal of the biography - is that correct? Why are you not interested the person who mercilessly delete information? Valery Surkoff (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice your question was answered above?[2] Answered correctly, I should add. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what it mean: "completely unsourced" and "a big no-no" - it is something like jokes or mockeries))). The key word of that user is - Сheers.)))--Valery Surkoff (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "unsourced" is to both the WP:V and WP:BLP policies. GAB^Hello! 19:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of multiple accounts. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to help create an encyclopedia. When I asked you above whether you had any connection with your article subject, you denied it (after first ignoring several questions about it from other users). I found that rather hard to believe. Now that you've gone so far as to pretend to be someone else to support yourself in a discussion, I don't believe it at all. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Surkoff, you're free to blank this page if you wish, and I'm going to ask for the AfD to be courtesy blanked. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I can't understand what mean - to blank. If possible explain what you mean exactly.Valery Surkoff (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To "blank" a page means to erase the text on it. To remove the text, to make the page empty. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

What exactly page?Valery Surkoff (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This page". The page you're looking at. The page User talk:Valery Surkoff. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

And why do it? For what purpose?Valery Surkoff (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you if you want to blank it. I thought it might be embarrassing for you to have it visible, with the complaints and the blocks and so on. If you don't find it so, that's fine too. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have nothing to lose. You unfairly blocked me on all time. The article, which I created - removed. Perhaps it is beneficial to you to have it blank. But I'll leave it all to see your preconceived unfair actions.Valery Surkoff (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I want to say 'thank you' to User:Goldenshimmer for improve Dmitry Polyakov's article. I have neither the experience nor the energy to get any justice here. A little later I will write a long letter where I want to explain.Valery Surkoff (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Trying to rescue articles is something I like doing :) I think you might have had a better experience here if you took your time to get the hang of editing and read the various policies to know how things work, and didn't go into the process with as much of a "battleground mentality". Anyway, that's just what I observe, feel free to take or leave my thoughts as you choose :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR

I think it might, in truth, be an issue: the number of times above the most simple things have to be explained, for example. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Dmitry Polyakov

Draft:Dmitry Polyakov, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dmitry Polyakov and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Dmitry Polyakov during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]