User talk:Yakoub Peisakhov

Volodymyr Zelenskyy
I have removed your comments from Talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy. First, youtube videos are not reliable sources. Anyone believing what random people post in a video with no further evidence should not be editing or commenting at Wikipedia. Second, the biographies of living people policy requires that only reliable sources be used, particularly for negative claims about a living person. You will be blocked if there are further attempts of that nature. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is insane. Please leave the conversation as it was, it's just a discussion, talk. Some other contributors may want to add, you're steeling this opportunity from them.
 * I'll find reliable sources, no problem. And yes, a video image surely can be a reliable source. Please see definition of "Published" in the rules: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of published, it says 'video ... materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.' Of course we can get a publishing of those videos by a reputable party. Also, please see rules for video links: Video links.
 * Next, you should keep in mind we are talking about allegations. This means that article should reliably speak about the allegation itself (the statement, the accusation), and not to prove if it's true or false. Readers can decide themselves.
 * Also, what we speak about is drug addiction, what kind of evidence would you expect? A positive drug test? There will be no such, but other circumstantial evidence should be taken into account. The article should shed light on that.
 * And one last thing. Wikipedia should stay neutral and politics-free. If you continue to bully other uses you will be blocked in the first place. Yakoub Peisakhov (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The links you posted fail WP:RS. You can ask a question at the Teahouse link above if you want independent opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir, this is literally insane! The rules for the reliable sources that you keep posting do prescribe rules for articles, but not for conversation/talk threads. There is no problem to have an open discussion there, and the draft of the proposed amendment to the article will surely comply with the rules and guidelines just as you and me both want. I once again ask you to leave the conversation as it was and to undo your hasty edits. Yakoub Peisakhov (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you see where the situation has gone? I got an indefinite block thanks to your hasty approaches. For what? For starting a conversation on a discussion/talk thread? This has gone to far and must be repaired immediately. Yakoub Peisakhov (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sir, don't you think and indefinite block is an unmeasured penalty? According to Blocking policy it is applied in case of significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. It is clear that there is no such instance in my situation. I was merely initiating a conversation in Talk/Discussion thread. Can you please repair this before we've gone too far? I have learnt the lesson and am ready to work harder on providing of reliable sources. Yakoub Peisakhov (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)