User talk:Miasnikov

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

By and large the editors seem unwilling to let the article be taken over by the safety issues and other non-technical matters. It might be possible (but not easy, I think) to start a new article specifically addressed to such concerns, and have a link to it from the present article, which would thus not lose its focus. Those of us who believe the risk to be negligible would no doubt watch and work to prevent such an article from becoming a dumping ground for nightmare catastrophe scenarios not supported by reliable outside sources, but at least the relevance issue should not be a problem, if a Wiki-acceptable article can be put together.

The funding was of course mainly the same as all CERN's funding over the past 40+ years, with the addition of monies from the non-CERN partners in the LHC. It would be interesting to have more details about the national contributions in the article. Regards, Wwheaton (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.  Ron h jones (Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now being warned on your talk page that you're engaging in an edit war and breaking the 3 revert rule on the Fare strike page
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Motopu (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

August 2011
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Stephen Suleyman Schwartz. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''p.943 of the source does not indicate it was a one person group. By now you should be familiar with WP:BLP and WP:V.'' Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Stephen Suleyman Schwartz are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please do not add links to negative, non reliable articles about living people to the talk page. Marokwitz (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, you may be blocked from editing. Marokwitz (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at FOR Organizing Committee of the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please stop stalking Stephen Schwartz and publishing defamatory links and original research based on your self-admitted personal connection with Mr. Schwartz. This is your final warning.'' Marokwitz (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a longer and gentler version of that final warning. (I'm the guy who just removed your message(s) from Talk:FOR_Organizing Committee of the United States.) I understand that you have put a lot of time and effort into trying to discredit Stephen Schwartz, and would like Wikipedia to reflect your views of him. However, Wikipedia's rules forbid including statements without "Verifiable" evidence via a "Reliable Source", and so far you haven't produced that. (This is not all that uncommon: I know of many articles that omit important, well-known facts because no-one "Reliable" has stated those facts in a cite-able form — eg., that a nutso antisemitic Australian political group got about US$1,000,000 from the CIA in the 1950s, when that was real money. Sigh.) Moreover, Wikipedia's rules are especially strict when dealing with negative claims about living people. We will notice and correct violations of these rules (though not always as quickly as we should) ... especially when the subject of an article keeps pointing them out, as Mr Schwartz does.
 * So I suggest to you that your edits to Stephen Suleyman Schwartz and related articles are wasting your time and energy. Maybe you should consider finding more productive ways to spend your time? Because you are acting like an internet troll, and everybody hates internet trolls. Please don't be a troll. CWC 09:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)