User talk:Petrov2017

Lede on Charles Dutoit: guidelines
Hello; on the lede for the Charles Dutoit Wikipedia article, here are some points to keep in mind: I also have noticed that you have only edited the Charles Dutoit article on Wikipedia to date. I am thus obliged to indicate to you this standard text from Wikipedia guidelines:
 * It is not acceptable practice to say that 'Person X will do this or that'. In the context of orchestras and chief conductorships/music directorships, the acceptable phrasing for a future action is 'Person X is scheduled to....'.
 * It is redundant to put particular dates for one particular post in the lede, unless there is something truly notable, like its duration (e.g. Ansermet leading the Orchestre de la Suisse Romande for 49 years, besides that being Ansermet's first orchestral post). Thus I have removed the dates for Verbier.
 * As well, I have seen no 3rd party citation, from the Verbier Festival or elsewhere, that cites 2017 as the date of the conclusion of his Verbier tenure. Unless there is a citation that I have missed, I have thus removed it from the article.
 * The prior 2nd sentence was extremely unwieldy, in addition to having undue emphasis on Verbier at the end. Dutoit's most important post in his career was clearly Montreal.
 * '......if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
 * All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.'

Thanks for reading. DJRafe (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * please stop deleting appropriate lead text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:2416:E975:8866:C745 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Continued deletions of RS-supported text
As indicated above, you must stop deleting RS-supported text. From the lede and elsewhere of the Dutoit argument. As you just did again. Your POV cannot be substituted. This is a warning. Further actions of this ilk may lead to you being blocked.--2604:2000:E016:A700:9DF1:D557:E223:6B90 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Charles Dutoit, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Charles Dutoit. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Final warning. In regard to Charles Dutoit. A comment in a comments section, to a likely non-RS blog (at that .. though it would be the same if it were the NYT), is not an RS at all. Obviously. A monkey could have written it. Do it again, and you will be blocked. Final warning. 2604:2000:E016:A700:4821:71C4:DD9A:47D3 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Charles Dutoit, 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. Zocke1r (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You continue to insert material into the Dutoit article sourced to a blog's comments section. Anyone who runs a blog knows that the comments posted by readers are unverifiable. This back and forth reverting has gone on too long. Please discuss this issue on the Dutoit article's talk page -- that is the correct place to carry on a discussion. It gives all interested editors a chance to participate.  If we cannot reach an agreement about this, we will need to turn to a dispute resolution process. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more details. I suggest that we try a moderated discussion on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Jburlinson (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Dutoit, you may be blocked from editing.  freshacconci  (✉) 21:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I have just posted a request for dispute resolution at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Here's the link -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Charles_Dutoit I ask all interested editors to take a moment and present their side of the story on the noticeboard. Thanks for your willingness to discuss.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The request for dispute resolution has been closed by an administrator for the following reason: "Closed as not meeting the prerequisites of this noticeboard. The filing editor states accurately that User:Petrov2017 is not engaging in discussion on the article talk page. However, discussion on the article talk page is a prerequisite to discussion here. Participation here is voluntary, for editors who have tried to discuss and have not agreed; editors who do not discuss cannot be dragged here. See the essay on failure to discuss, and the edit-warring policy. Options for the filing party (and other editors who agree with them) include filing a report at the edit-warring noticeboard after providing a warning." It looks like my next step needs to be to file a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. I hate to do that, but I will if you continue to revert deletions of material sourced to the "comments" section of a blog. At least, please engage with me and other editors on the talk page for the Dutoit article. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Dutoit.  freshacconci  (✉) 07:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Charles Dutoit, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice concerning you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)