User talk:Max Arosev

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

Welcome!

Hello, Max Arosev, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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! Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as 1980 Summer Olympics boycott. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

I see by your addition to 1980 Summer Olympics boycott that you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Professional sports, 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. General Ization ^Talk 17:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block.

I've sent the same message over to Tomcat7. This edit warring over multiple aricles nonsense is getting ridiculous. Both of you need to calm down, stop undoing each others' edits and try using the article talk pages a lot more. Minima© (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker that's why I specialize more on editing rather than writing. I possess some knowledge of Soviet/Russian sports. Soviets violated the Olympic rules using full-time amateurs who, in fact, were not amateurs and that put Western athletes at a disadvantage. I find it very important to mention because many people are unaware why Soviets were so strong in the Olympics. Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

So, the advantage is that I know the topic in Russian. The drawback is that I'm not quite good in English. Let's discuss it together. Perhaps, I may provide you the sources that we'll be able to translate. Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:59, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

The main problem is that you are adding content that is not sourced. That is, even where you are adding cites, what you are adding is not discussed in your cites. This is particularly important when adding "controversy" because you need to demonstrate that there was controversy and not just that you, personally, are unhappy about it. You are also adding a lot that depends on an article from Time that is behind a paywall, so no-one can read it to verify what Wikipedia says it true. Simply repeatedly entering your text, and accusing others of vandalism when it is challenged is not a way to establish consensus and is very likely to simply get yourself blocked and your edits removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:17, 12 June 2017 (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:Max_Arosev reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: ). Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you OK with lies that Tomcat7 pushes so hard? Check his edits. The only thing he did is reverting my edits without a proper explanation. Be sensible. Again, I'm trying to deliver the truth about the nature of Soviet victories. This process is not smooth but for it's better to cooperate. I'm a Russian and I can help you with sources. Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:12, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. But it is you that wants to add things, therefore the responsibility is yours to make sure they are properly cited. No-one elses. Tomcat7 stopped when warned about edit warring. You did not. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've indefinitely blocked you as overall WP:NOTHERE. You have an obvious and controversial agenda that you are pushing on almost every article you touch. You have been edit-warring on multiple articles. You have made copyright violations. You have edited without logging in to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize. The only goal that I have pursued is delivering the truth. I'm not a native speaker that's why there were some misunderstandings with other users. I ask you to unblock me because I really want to contribute. Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38, June 12, 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize. The only goal that I have pursued is delivering the truth. I'm not a native speaker that's why there were some misunderstandings with other users. I ask you to unblock me because I really want to contribute.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2017 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I won't push any agenda, I'll stay focused on facts. Honestly, my only desire is to expand some Russia-related articles in English. I promise that I'll use verified sources only. I have only one active account. I accidentally edited a bunch of articles without logging in but that was not intentional. As I said, I'm relatively new to all of this.

Decline reason:

"I have only one active account". Not true. Unblock declined. Jezebel's Ponyo^bons mots 20:59, 21 June 2017 (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.

• One of the things you must do if you want to edit on the English Wikipedia is follow the guidelines and rules of the project. I have restored your first, declined unblock request; please note the text in that message that states "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The above unblock request still doesn't address your violations of WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:13 June 12, 2017 (UTC)

This is not a case of simply "misunderstanding because of a language difference". For misunderstandings to occur there has to first be some attempts at offering clear reasons for edits made. Instead, reasons given were often too vague, such as: "Deletion of irrelevant information" [shown here]. In that case, what you deleted — that M. Ali's attempt at diplomacy failed — was very relevant to the passage where it was mentioned. What I would like to know is how did your being an "expert on Soviet/Russian sports" inform your decision to arbitrarily remove this information from the article? How did your being an expert in Soviet/Russian sports inform your decision to then undo my edits returning this information to the article? Your argument that you're trying to "expand Russia-related articles" seems inconsistent with this type of behavior where half your edits remove information rather than add to it. — Spintendo^Talk 03:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reblocked you for evading your block with Tofder (talk · contribs · count). This is a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Has continued with AndreyOlisov (talk · contribs · count) as well as User:80.249.188.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be sane, please

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for edits like these: 1, 2. Now I understand that it was stupid. But you have to understand me, I have some knowledge about the history of Russian sports, and you have to agree that they really bent the amateur rules by listing their best players in the military. I thought there was little information about that on Wikipedia and wanted to contribute. Now I get that it really looked like “agenda pushing” because I was posting the same stuff over and over without any sources. I was wrong. But what it is going on now is UNFAIR and WRONG. I make edits like these from an IP (1, 2), removing unsourced and unencyclopedic content or adding interesting facts, and they are REVERTED by a crazy admin! I’m just curious whether it is considered OK? I sincerely apologize for my past mistakes, but please, give me an opportunity to edit, you can watch me, you can check me, but what’s going on right now is WRONG. Thanks. Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:08, June 3, 2019 (UTC) P.S. There is a good article about the history of Russia’s cheating at the Olympics. It’s in the LA 84 Library. You can read it here: https://digital.la84.org/digital/api/collection/p17103coll10/id/4145/download P.P.S. I’m really sorry. I was a 16 year old back then.

Decline reason:

The standard offer is your only hope at this point. A block request with personal attacks isn't a good idea anyway. Your "past mistakes" are today, not some time when you were arguably still a child. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:21, 3 June 2019 (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 just want to edit and make this encyclopedia better and cleaner. Djsasso is revrting edits without even looking at them. By doing so, he reinstates unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Arosev (talk • contribs)

It isn't that I am not looking at them, it is that any edit by a blocked editor evading their block gets reverted good or bad. A large number of your edits are also heavily biased and in some cases outright incorrect. You've been evading your block for years now pushing an agenda with your edits using hundreds of IPs. Just today you uses a number of different IPs and created atleast three more acounts that I noticed. User:Vnimanieplz, User:Ondumaet, and User:Otrivind -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your impression. If I add material critical of Russia that is supported by sources, that is not “being biased”, that is stating facts! Max Arosev (talk • contribs)

I don’t push any agenda unlike some far-right pro-Russian editors on this website. I just live in Russia, know some stuff and realize that some things aren’t really mentioned here. That’s it. Max Arosev (talk • contribs)

The irony is the edits that I first noticed you making were heavily pro-russian biased. So I am somewhat amused about you thinking you were adding material critical of Russia. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. You know that.

I just want to edit. If you unblock me, I swear I won’t create new accounts. And why isn’t a guy like User:Tomcat7 banned? A self-described Russian monarchist, he constantly pushes blatant propaganda, and that is just FINE for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Arosev (talk • contribs)

At this point, your block has nothing to do with the political bent (if any) of your edits. It has to do with the fact that you have abused multiple accounts and edited while logged out despite your block. When you cannot abide by a prohibition against editing, it makes it harder for us to believe that you'll abide by any other Wikipedia rules and guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just give a chance. As I said, I will follow the rules. Listen, there will be no point to break them! Really. And you can watch me, my account, my IP, and everything. You see I break the rules, you block me indef! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Arosev (talk • contribs)

Well, if we give you the standard second chance, the first requirement is six months of good behaviour. Since that means six months without evading your block...ask again in six months. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you make an exception? Just give me a try, you can watch my every single edit. I will mainly focus on removing unsourced content and adding sourced content. You don’t risk anything. Just be human, please.

DJSasso, could you restore some of my edits (sourced and meaningful ones)?

Your access to your talk page while blocked is solely for the purpose of requesting unblock; you may not solicit other editors to edit on your behalf. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Thank you.

Jpgordon, please, pay some attention to User:Tobby72 and his edits. He frequently spews blatant Russian propaganda under the premise of “adding info/content”. Latest example: his biased edit 1 on the Chernobyl (miniseries). Tobby72 also censors his talk page, deleting criticisms of his edits. Example: 2. Also check User:GPRamirez5 who does the same thing. Example: 3.

It is my hope that Wikipedia won’t become a platform for Russian apologists. If you allow me to edit on this website, I’ll put all my efforts into identifying these bad actors and reporting them to the administrators.

Another heavily biased pro-Russian editor User:Tomcat7 with edits like these: 1, 2, 3. But he isn’t banned, heck, he isn’t even reprimanded.

Or User:18abruce who is always erasing criticisms of Russia (especially in ice hockey). Example: 1. On the other hand, when his pro-Russian friend Tomcat7 pushed Russian lies (here: 2), 18abruce was “suddenly” silent. What a coincidence!

The guy like me, who simply wants some justice to thousands of Western athletes who were robbed by Soviet state-sponsored professionals, IS BANNED. Tomcat7, GPRamirez, Tobby72 and 18abruce, on the other hand are free to spew their lies. Astonishing. User:Max Arosev, talk

DJSasso, you can join the discussion, if you want to.

That's quite enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion

This user is banned under WP:3X. Note they've been engaging in ban evasion as 89.113.98.96 in May, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Olympic Games

I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:53, 29 November 2022 (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. Flibirigit (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]