User talk:PavelShk

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello PavelShk, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to SNC-Lavalin affair have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SNC-Lav and LavScam
Hi PavelShk, and thanks for joining us. Sorry, that this first experience with Wikipedia has been a little heated. Most editing on Wikipedia is rather mundane, but new articles about current events can be controversial and ignite passion among editors. My understanding of Curly Turkey's concerns are just that you have another account. On Wikipedia, editors should only have one account, because we rely on consensus and sometimes votes (in search of consensus) having multiple accounts does not work on our platform. As such, it is always something editors have to be on guard for. That said, a new user and a Sock Puppet, slang for fake double account, sometimes look the same before the editor starts to branch out to edit other topics and pages. Keep at it. As you edit more articles and build a reputation for yourself things get easier. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hi Pavel, I am not sure if you were ever notified but you have been mentioned in this ongoing ANI. Anyway, you may want to have a look, and comment if necessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
For what it is worth, I largely agree with Blade that this isn't really much of a personal attack. I have been more troubled by other behaviour from CT. In my view some of his behaviour has been uncivil and he has treated SNC-Lavalin affair as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you think his behaviour requires action, the place to complain is the ANI. has suggested a topic ban is required for CT based in part of his earlier treatment of you. If you comment on the ANI, it is best to be specific and provide dif links if possible. ANI should only be used to discuss problematic behaviour by editors, it is not meant to be a place to discuss content. If you are going to make complaints about an editor, you should notify them on their talk page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair
Hi PavelShk. I thought you may want to know that Curly Turkey has started an ArbCom request here an extension of the ANI. As you have been actively involved in the article, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Harris Seldon (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration addition
I have added you to a recently filed request for arbitration. ArbCom request here You can if you want to remove your name, but since you are an active editor on the article I decided to add you. (Editors can add names even if they did not open the case.) Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, PavelShk. As you are new I would like to extend Littleolive oil's comment: do read the guide to arbitration! The discussions at ArbCom are more structured than elsewhere, and participation needs to be done with due care, and even caution. E.g.: note that at the top of that page it says (bolded, no less): "This page is for statements, not discussion." One of several points that should be kept in mind. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I can understand you might be shy about this, but if you wanted to address the "intransigent behavior" problem (where your experience is very much relevant evidence) you need to do very soon. (The "Evidence" deadline is the 7th.) If you need some quick instruction on the extraction and use of "diffs", or on anything else, just ask. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I saw your addition, and it looks very well done. Thanks for taking the time to do that. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration Case
If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list. You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Proposed Decision - Postponed
This message is to inform you that the proposed decision for the Canadian Politics Arbitration Case has been postponed to June 21 28, 2019. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed remedy or finding of fact which relates to you has been posted in the Canadian politics arbitration case. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. The guide to arbitration may also be helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed
An arbitration case regarding Canadian politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.
 * 2) Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.
 * 3) Curly Turkey,, , , , , and are admonished for edit warring.
 * 4) All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me!  03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)