User talk:Раммон

A page you started (Cundell) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Cundell, Раммон!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"wikified page"

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback
StudiesWorld (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

what you do there is fix it, not remove it. Read WP:SOFIXIT
I've watched your edit warring up and down several pages, and your accusation of editwarring at ANI. It is you who are at fault. You were told at ANI that what you do there is fix it, not remove it. Read WP:SOFIXIT.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Coffee April 2017
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not show your ignorance, please. Information I had added was based on reliable sources: Виктор Шендерович: "Движемся к 2018 году" and Алексей Рощин: "Никакой возможности для альтернативного расследования в России нет". The first source is copy of blog of well-known Russian journalist Victor Shenderovich on Newsru.com. The second source is copy of blog of social psychologist Alexey Roschin on Newsru.com. So I suppose that the information should be returned to the article. Раммон (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a slander - the authors made assumptions. Раммон (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The information you added is defamatory and has been deleted. Please do not add content that breaches WP:LIBEL. The sources you showed contain assumptions, not facts. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 07:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The information is neither defamatory nor libelous - it is only a version. An assumption, that was expressed by two public people and was published in the reliable source - newsru.com. Раммон (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions may be applied to your account
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

, as far as I understood, you suppose that newsru.com is an unreliable source. Then add it to blacklist, please. Раммон (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * news.ru.com is a reliable, if biased, source. However, the source you        used started blog.newsru.com, which makes it unreliable. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , here are the same words of the same people - Victor Shenderovich and Alexey Roschin. What will you do - unblock me or add newsru.com to blacklist? Раммон (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speculation and Facebook, both of which fail WP:RS. Subject closed. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is my case: "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". And violated rules WP:AGF and WP:DNB by blocking me, that is why my case is also described by the next words "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)" of the WP:GAP. Раммон (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been editing on en-Wiki since July 2015, so don't claim to be a newbie. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not know that blocking without a warning is common practice on en-Wiki (I mean my second block for 3 days) because I did not take an interest in blocking policy on en-Wiki. Раммон (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

, and, I suppose that your interpretation of WP:BLP is far from its interpretation of  - Jimbo supported existence of the Putin khuilo! article in spite of possible sue's threaten. But you try to prevent existance of criticism of Putin on en-Wiki. Read this article to see sample of truely neutral article. Article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing is violating WP:NPV now because it is containing the only point of view - Putin's one, and the article is not containing any others points of view. In independent Russian media there are a lot of materials critisizing Putin's point of view to the act of terrorism and this criticism must be in the article in accordance with WP:NPV. And your miserable attempts to shield the bloody dictator do not correspond to the purposes of creating Wikipedia. Раммон (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where have I ever said that I am opposed to negative material about Vladimir Putin (or any other BLP)? What I said was this:- any negative material referring to a BLP needs to be sourced to strong, very reliable sources. Blogs, social media etc do not meet this and cannot be used, ever. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I did not push conspiracy theories but I used reliable source - newsru.com. Also I did not misrepresent sources - it is unfair accusation. Раммон (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You used commentary, which is not a reliable source for anything beyond the commentators' opinions, to support a claim the commentators didn't make. Huon (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added text in that commentaries were not presented as facts but as commentators' opinions. And I did not distort sense of commentators' words. Раммон (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

and, FYI: the article on Ukrainian Wikipedia contains version of the involvement of Russian authorities to the bombing cited this source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zefAG9YlrgI. Раммон (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No comment on the Ukrainian Wikipedia's standards, but the English Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the English Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a reliable source? Раммон (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway indefenite block for mistake in reliability of a source it seems a bit steep. Раммон (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

, I realized my error: I violated WP:BLPGOSSIP. I promise not to do it and I ask to unblock me. Раммон (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
, could you please explain which problems prevent you from unlocking me? Раммон (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do I even start? You seem to misunderstand WP:RS. You've added defamatory content. You've attacked other editors. You've engaged in and propagated conspiracy theories. And you don't seem to see the problem with all of that. Nobody's going to unblock you unless we are sure your future edits will be fundamentally different in just about every regard from your existing edits, and that seems unlikely. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I misunderstood WP:RS considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). This caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. But now I have realized all my these mistakes and I'm not going to repeat them. Раммон (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , unlock me, please. Раммон (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already declined your unblock. If you wish to be unblocked, make another request and a different admin will review. I suggest you be substantially more convincing, though. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , what do you think could convince another administrator (or you) to unblock me? Раммон (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can. Your actions so far have shown you are actively harmful to Wikipedia. But, it's up to you. Maybe you'll be able to do so. Please stop pinging me, I have nothing more to say. --Yamla (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

September 27, 2018

 * , yes, I explained that my mistakes were misunderstanding of the WP:RS rule, that caused considering as RS sources that violated WP:BLPGOSSIP (defamatory content). And that this caused I attacked other editors and propagated conspiracy theories. I intend to avoid repeating them in the future with using sources that do not violate WP:BLPGOSSIP and other requirements of the WP:RS rule. Also I intend not to argue with local administrators. Раммон (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 1, 2018

 * I would be most interested to hear your explanation of the reasoning that led you to believe that this request would stand a better chance than your previous (identical) request. —  Wasell ( T ) 13:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, the above is not an attempt to be snarky; I actually would like to understand the thinking behind this kind of repeated request.
 * I have seen it before, and I find it most peculiar. —  Wasell ( T ) 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately previous admin (Yunshui) gave up communication with me on the most interesting place - just after my answer to his request to comment my unblock request. I hope that admin who will study my last request, will not be like previous. Раммон (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That may very well be, but try to see things from our point of view. Why would we want to find the sentence "I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them" any more convincing than the sentence "I have realized my mistakes that led to block and I'm not going to repeat them"? —  Wasell ( T ) 13:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, how many kilobytes should have my petition about unblocking? Раммон (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , how many kilobytes should I write to be unblocked? Раммон (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You aren't trying to convince me, you are trying to convince the next admin to review your unblock request. So I have no idea. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

June 5, 2019

 * What areas do you plan to edit after your unblock? What have you learned since the block about what is a reliable source from editing on other wikis? Sasquatch t&#0124;c 23:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not a plan to edit some specific areas of articles. As to reliable sources, I use academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. Also I use well-established news outlets (in accordance with WP:NEWSORG). Раммон (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given your contributions to other projects and the length of this block, I will grant your unblock request on the condition that stick to reliable sources and refrain from edit warring, especially on Russia related articles. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:YouTubeWLogo
Template:YouTubeWLogo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Custom Comment
The above template is a pro-forma FYI. It does not imply any problems with your editing. In fact, if you look at my own talk page you'll see that I post the same thing to myself on a regular basis, and try to hand them out to other climate editors from time to time. If you wish to discuss it, just add a note in this thread and I'll be notified via my watchlist. Thanks for your interest in climate change topics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive RFC use
Hi.... RFC is a tool when local discussion has gone on for a time without any resolution. If everyone instantly invoked RFC for every discussion the flood of rfc notices would dwarf the recent record Greenland ice sheet melt. So.... please save that for when just talking to page regulars has been unable to resolve the dispute. In fact, its usually good practice to discuss WP:Dispute resolution options, including RFC, with the other editors before just unilaterally going there. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Thunbergjugend" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thunbergjugend. Since you had some involvement with the Thunbergjugend redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

frivolous redirects
Please refrain from making any more redirects to Greta Thunberg without first gaining consensus for them at Talk:Greta Thunberg. Relevant P&G include NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Redirect
 * WP:Neologism
 * WP:NPOVNAME

"Make the World Greta Again" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Make the World Greta Again. Since you had some involvement with the Make the World Greta Again redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penetrating trauma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pellet ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Penetrating_trauma check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Penetrating_trauma?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)