User talk:Александр Мотин/Archive/2016-20Discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incidentYou are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incident. Mamasanju (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup: Other stuff existsJust letting you know regarding an edit you made to the article, linking a country violates WP:OVERLINK. This is what Walter is trying to tell us.
CosplayWhile I reverted you there, I invite you to the discussion on talk about which pictures should illustrate this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Александр Мотин. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Autopatrolled removedHi, I have removed autopatrolled from your account due to the quality of your recent article creations - this does not affect your ability to create articles, but allows other editors a chance to improve recent creations. Please take a moment to re-familiarise yourself with the expected quality of new articles, and please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any help. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing more from you in the future -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Category:Railway stations in Azerbaijan opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussionCategory:Railway stations in Azerbaijan opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussionCategory:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussionCategory:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Nomination of Pur (Belgaum) for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pur (Belgaum) 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/Pur (Belgaum) 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. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Telegram Open NetworkHello Александр Мотин, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Telegram Open Network for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Hello Александр Мотин! While doing periodic cleanups I found a bot account of yours: MotinBot that does not appear to have been used since: 20110103122823. Have you retired this bot and no longer require a bot flag for it? Please ping me if replying here. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Tverskaya Zastava Square moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, Tverskaya Zastava Square, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " WarningPlease do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:List of longest bridges, Vasco da Gama Bridge, Crimean Bridge]], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.--Germash19 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, this edit by topic-starter in fact violates months-long status-quo about the lead. So, I had to revert it and tweak (along lines of Ruwiki, which also softens statement from is ("является") to "is considered to be" ("считается"). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Александр Мотин. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Александр Мотин. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) WarningPlease stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Vasco da Gama Bridge, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Germash19 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
WarningLast warning. If you continue to delete the text, I will write a request to the administrators.--Germash19 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Tverskaya Zastava Square) has been reviewed!Thanks for creating Tverskaya Zastava Square. I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC) A page you started (Kamaz Master) has been reviewed!Thanks for creating Kamaz Master. I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Britishfinance (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter messageSochi airportI saw your entry in the article for the busiest European airports. I agree that Sochi airport is European but your reference (http://aer.aero/en/airport/press/news/mezhdunarodnyy-aeroport-sochi-stal-luchshim-aeroportom-evropy-v-reytinge-po-kachestvu-obsluzhivaniya/) is misleading because it says Ankara airport is also Europe, which is not.
In former times, there was a huge edit war in that article (see the history) about which airports are European and which are not. In the end, the consensus was that one has to follow the geographical criteria. It turns out, Sochi lies in the south of the Great Caucasus ridge, therefore it's formally not Europe.
(https://bigenc.ru/media/2016/10/27/1235158279/%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%AC%D0%A8%D0%9E%D0%99%20%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%92%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%97.jpg). Sochi is clearly to the south of the Big Caucasian ridge (Большой Кавказский Хребет, водораздел). Thus, Sochi is in fact in Asia.
The article Mosvodokanal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing I mentioned you in the "List of Wikipedians by article count" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4900:43F:CC:2223:3E19:6549 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Discretionary sanctions alertThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Stickee (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC) PingingHi! Just a note that there's no need to ping me on the talk page, I still keep an eye on the page. Stickee (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC) edit warYour 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17Commenting re this edit undoing this revert. The edit summary of the revert said that it was removing content which was given undue weight. Your unrevert did not address that but, instead, argued that the restored content relied on a primary source. However, the source cited was a secondary source -- a report of a briefing at which info from a primary source had been presented and interpreted. I would prefer not to get involved in this, so I'm commenting here instead of on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
DRN case status
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
I will advise you to drop all of this now, edit warring, not telling users about DRN's all look iffy. I am not sure you are on a winner here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC) And now a relaunched ANI, this really is not a good idea. I susgest you close that, and the DRN and just accept you do not have wp:consensus and edit less contentious topics.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite partial block from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}} . El_C 00:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I will break my statement and try to explain, note I will not reply. A. When half a dozen editors tell you you are wrong it is wp:tenditious editing to continue to labour the point. B. When you are told (by the same editors) this has been disused over the course of years and they have always rejected the same arguments it is wp:disruptive to continue to argue your case. C. When multiple admins tell you "there is not case to answer" saying "but will you ban them" multiple times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and may be seen as an example of vexatious reporting. D. Trying to argue that reporting separate users over the same issue at different venues is not the same issue can be seen as wp:forumshopping (also see C above), as well as WP:LAWYERING. E. Posting DS alerts are not attacks against you, they are informing you there are special measures in place (see C above as well). There are more but this will do. You have to explain how you did not breach these (and note wp:appeal), it has to be about you, solely you and just you).Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Also I think that wp:spa might have had some impact since the 18 April 2020 literally all your edits have been related in some way to this one page. This is why you have only had a (very narrow) wp:TBAN, but it did appear to have become an obsession with you. I think (therefore) that there may have been a case of getting you off that page before you developed into an SPA and got a wider site ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
БукАлександр, Бук 312 вообще на данный момент не имеет никакого отношения к крушениу Боинга. У установки которая сбила Боинг цифра по середне была стёрта, поэтому о нём говорили "Бук 3х2". Было выдвинуто много теории на счёт его происхождения, многие оказались тупиками, поскольку Буков с этими цифрами было замечено как минимум семь. "Бук 312 СБУ" был или их вбросом или их ошибкой. "Бук 312 с Ясинуватой" снятый в Украине был выложен летом 2014 но снят как вы заметили зимой, то есть не имел никакого отношения к Буку 3х2. Но это два (или один) проявления Буков, а их было всего семь. Все они анализировались вот здесь https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2016/05/03/the_lost_digit_ru/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/09/8188/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ где разбираются и с вопросом "Бук 312 и Бук 332" а также сравнивают все 7 явлений Бука. В просепарастических кругах все остановились на "СБУ НАВРАЛО ПРО БУК 312 ХАХАХА" потому что это последний тупик который давал ещё какие то шансы оправдать сепаратистов. Только факт, что СБУ ошибилось ило соврало тогда в 2014 году никак не противоречит доказалтельствам которые были собраны в 2014-2019 годах и подробно проанализированные и я не вижу никакого смысла загразнять текущую статью вбросами так слева как и справа с которыми следствие уже давно разобралось. Cloud200 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Auto translation: Alexander, Buk 312 in general at the moment has nothing to do with the crash of a Boeing. At the installation that brought down the Boeing, the figure in the middle was erased, so they said "Buk 3x2" about it. A lot of theory was put forward regarding its origin, many turned out to be dead ends, since at least seven Bukov with these numbers were noticed. "Buk 312 SBU" was either their stuffing or their mistake. "Buk 312 with Yasinuvata" shot in Ukraine was posted in the summer of 2014 but shot as you noticed in the winter, that is, it had nothing to do with Buk 3x2. But these are two (or one) manifestations of Bukov, and there were only seven of them. All of them were analyzed here https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2016/05/03/the_lost_digit_ru/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/09 / 8188 / https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ where they understand the question "Buk" 312 and Beech 332 "and also compare all 7 appearances of the Beech. In proseparastic circles, everyone stopped at "SBU BECAUSE ABOUT BEECH 312 HAHAHA" because this is the last dead end that gave some more chances to justify the separatists. Only the fact that the SBU was mistaken and it lied then in 2014 does not contradict the evidence that was collected in 2014-2019 and analyzed in detail and I see no reason to pollute the current article with throws so left and right as the investigation has long dealt with. Cloud200 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Cloud200, hello again! If not opposed, then to "you." Look, look, I’m not saying or claiming that Buk 312 shot down a Malaysian Boeing. My topic on the CO article is about something else. I raised a serious question about the alleged falsification of the SBU of "irrefutable evidence" presented to the world public on July 19, 2014 at a special briefing or whatever they called it. In general, the essence is the following, the representative of the SBU said that these Buki, who were there in the photographs, +1 Buk and +1 Buk command post were transferred to Russia on the night immediately after the Malaysian Boeing was shot down. But the bloggers from Bellingcat did not agree with this and issued a report to which I gave a link that the Buk 312, which, as they said from the SBU, was supposedly transported to Russia on July 18, 2014, was not actually sent to Russia , and all the time, as I understood from their report, it was controlled by the Ukrainian army. In addition, Bellingcat confirmed that the Buk 312 photo on the night background was not taken the night after the downing of the Boeing, but on March 19, 2014. But I emphasize once again that I did not state or claim that Buk 312 shot down the Malaysian Boeing. At least at the moment I have not seen objective evidence of this in any source. I hope I could dispel some of your doubts. --Alexander Motin (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) BLUDGEONINGStop now over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It has been explained to you why we do not support your suggestions. So stop arguing the same rejected arguments over and over again. If you keep on I will take you to ANI for wp:tenditious editing. I suggest you drop this topic area and contribute elsewhere. This is my last and final word on the subject (here or at the articles talk page), next time I respond it will be at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of ICity for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICity 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/ICity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Kadzi (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) ANIThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC) A121 highway (Russia) moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, A121 highway (Russia), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " ″returned better image″ — а чего оно лучше? С такими камерами можно было сделать и лучше фотографию без перекошенных таблиц и поездов. Я в отличие от вас даже на самой станции был. P.S. Заблокировали бессрочно в Русской Википедии, переместились сюда? А если здесь заблокируют, куда пойдёте? =) --Brateevsky (talk to me) 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 3Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow International Business Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hotel Ukraina. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. 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:Александр_Мотин reported by User:Zoozaz1 (Result: ). Thank you. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC) August 2020This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at COVID-19 vaccine, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Russian sources are unreliable and unreviewed by the international science community. You are spreading Russian propaganda. Zefr (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 vaccine 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. Zefr (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
GS alert--RexxS (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
NoticeThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2Hello. 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:Александр_Мотин reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia