User talk:AveTory

Welcome!

Hello, AveTory! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Grin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarlet Sails. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergey Kurginyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Berezovsky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Kulidzhanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergei Gerasimov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikhail Tsekhanovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This edit. Among other problems, the defamatory text was sourced to YouTube, LiveJournal and an opinion piece by Prokhanov. Those are not reliable sources. Please follow WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• What defamatory text? It was a quote from Akhedzhakova supported by a recorded fragment of the TV show. Since when Wikipedia forbids Youtube and blog references? As well as references to opinions expressed by political opponents marked as opinions? AveTory (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, according to Prokhanov (diff above) "Akhedzhakova is covered in blood. I don't know how she still breathes in Russian blood without an aqualung". Overall, that edit (first paragraph in "political views") was an obvious WP:BLP violation. If you do not trust me, please ask someone else, preferably an administrator. Or you can ask on WP:BLPNB. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • The actual text said "The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict", the text you quote was in the reference to Alexander Prokhanov's interview where he answered a question about Akhedzhakova during 1993. You removed this and the whole section about Akhedzhakova's political activity in 1993 (which she is famous for in the first place) and still didn't provide links to the Wikipedia rule that marks Youtube and LiveJournal as unreliable sources. AveTory (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

LiveJournal is a blog. Even linking to YouTube can be problematic, see WP:YouTube. If you insist on including this text, then it would be best to ask 3rd opinion from an administrator familiar with the rule. Do you want it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean regarding Youtube, but Akhedzhakova made an appearance on "central television" during coup d'état, no particular channel is linked to it and thus holds rights to the record. I may find and add a link to secondary sources though. And official blogs by public persons are regularly used to illustrate their opinions in Wikipedia, they are even referenced in /*External links*/. Prokhanov's interview comes from Echo of Moscow. Maybe his words don't need to be quoted, but the interview seems perfectly reliable to me as far as it addresses the opponent's opinion. AveTory (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, telling something like "she expressed her support to Yeltsin government during the attempted coup d'état" [RS], would be fine. However, telling something like "she is covered in blood" [Prokhanov] is not. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I wrote in the body of the text. Prokhanov is quoted in the ref, I can't put words into his mouth. That's the way he usually expresses his thoughts as far as I'm concerned. He is still one of the leaders of public opinion on the Communist front. AveTory (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, as follows from the diff, your wrote something very different: she "encouraged the army to «protect us from the goddamn Constitution» and start storming the White House, or «the Communists will return» ... As a result of the armed conflict, from 158 to 2000 people (mostly civilians) were killed and hundreds were injured. ... The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict ever since. (ref: Alexander Prokhanov: Akhedzhakova is covered in blood....) What? My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"she attended a live TV show where she gave a speech in support of Yeltsin's actions" - that's what I wrote. "she expressed her support to Yeltsin government during the attempted coup d'état" - that's what you wrote.

"The actress has been personally blamed by her opponents for escalating the conflict ever since" - this is followed by two quoted references. The Prokhanov one is a finishing line in a rather long talk about open letters, including the signers of the Letter of Forty-Two who "demanded to finish the monster, after that Yeltsin's tanks shot the White House - all those liberals are covered in my friends' blood". Then he was asked by the host whether Akhedzhakova is also a "bloodsucker", and he recalled how she inspired tanks to storm the Palace of the Soviets the night before the armed conflict. All this is too long to quote, but it's obviously related to the topic. I will return it as a link without the quote. AveTory (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the problem. You are trying to prove that she (an actress!) played a significant role in 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. If that would be the case, one could include it on her BLP page, neutrally worded. But this view is not supported by any RS or by statements by any reasonable experts on the subject. Prokhanov is obviously not an expert here, although his fringe views can be included in his own BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to prove something, not me. I'm only adding documented facts from her biography and will soon add book publications in support. Prokhanov is obviously an expert as the main editor of the leading Communist newspaper since the early 1990s. AveTory (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment was to warn you and explain the policy (see above). Best regards, My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I am not sure why you insist on inclusion this poorly sourced and biased text into the BLP. I think you are generally doing good work around here. Actually, your style reminds me User:INeverCry. Do not you know him by any chance? My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC) My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Далеко пойдёте. AveTory (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is very simple. As long as you are doing good work here and respect key policies, no one (including me) will complain. If not, well, please read the notice above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This works both ways, if you didn't see my point. The way you freely remove/rewrite whole paragraphs without even checking the references first, ignore arguments, refuse to provide links to obscure Wikipedia rules, decide on your own which source/person is acceptable and which - not is unrespectful from the very start. AveTory (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. I reported this to WP:BLPNB - as promised. If you are right, then community will be on your side. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Again

Misinterpreting writings by living people in a highly contentious way, as you do here may be a reason for editing restrictions in WP:BLP area. You were warned. I would recommend you to self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from and agree with 95% of your edits. But you should allow others to fix a few your edits that are clearly problematic. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm always open for compromises when they are reasonable, not when you delete whole paragraphs without even checking sources first, then demand prooves and arguments from me, ignore what I write and change it to something completely different. I don't have time for that. AveTory (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What? That was my edit. Not only I did not delete any paragraphs, but I rewrote the content specifically to reflect what these sources actually tell. Of course we can have a disagreement about one of two sources (the letter by Topol) because this is a primary source and not really about the subject of the page, so it should be simply removed and replaced by a better source. End of story. Speaking about your last version, you apparently are trying to insert the phrase about "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews"... My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I already explained why the letter is about Semibankirshina - because it deals with the Berezovsky's group of bankers in power. There was only one such group at the time. I didn't try to insert anything, it was indicated from the start. The rise of antisemitism was one of the visible results of their activity, in addition to the 1998 market crash, criminalisation of business and the general harm to the reputation of capitalism in Russia (all mentioned in the text). I don't approve it, I'm well aware that many businessmen and criminals had no relation to Jews, but their number among Semibankirshina was unproportional. Press, nationalists and public figures like Topol and Solzhenitsyn (particularly in his "200 Years Together" book) made a big deal of it. It's part of history now. AveTory (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to include must be supported by secondary RS that are clearly on the subject of the page. This is especially important if you are dealing with controversial comments by living people. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mikhail Bulgakov". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 March 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Mikhail Bulgakov, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lidiya Vertinskaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | 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) 09:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Voinovich

Hey, I'm not trying to vandalise the article, I'm trying to improve it. And I appreciate the work that you've done already. If you think I was being too bold, feel free to change it back of course. But I think that several of the things I removed were not clearly referenced, I wasn't sure of what parts of the paragraphs the sources were about. As for the layout of the article, I think it's an improvement to keep his biography in one place but if you have any other ideas of course we can try that instead. Yakikaki (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hello. You made too many changes to the article, I wouldn't know where to start now. I'm only suggesting to return his early biography (which is described in every detail in the "Parents, childhood, Khujand, father returned" section of his memoirs, I only briefly mentioned some of the more important moments). And big paragraphs might be suitable when describing his major works, but sections that speak about different periods of his biography such as "Literary production and dissidence" and "Public activism in Russia" look like a big mess now. AveTory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yefim Gamburg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Andrei Mironov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Courage School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonid Kharitonov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AveTory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Violation of the 3-warning rule by Floquenbeam while acting in accordance to it myself. Reasonable reverts based on Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and no damage or disruption to the original article from my side. AveTory (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Laying the blame squarely at Floquenbeam's feet.ain't gonna get you unblocked. In case you missed it, you do not continue to edit war because the other user is stubborn and won't see reason. You seek dispute resolution (not sanctions against the other user), get a third opinion, open an RfC, seek mediation. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AveTory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Second request for unblock. I don't think I violated any procedures or made any damage/disruption to the Leo Tolstoy article. I consider these [1] [2] [3] comments and actions by admins to be abuse of power and find the immediate 48-hours block unjustified. AveTory (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You engaged in edit warring, and both yourself and the other editor involved were blocked for doing so. Floquenbeam's addition of a dummy edit into the article warning you two to stop the disruption, his blocking of your account, and Dlohcierekim's decline to unblock your account do not constitute an abuse of administrator tools at all. You need to stop with the finger-pointing at everyone else if you want your unblock requests to be considered and taken seriously. Wikipedia is not about winning and the belief that your version of the article was correct does not excuse nor does it exempt you from edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, I'm aware you think you are right, otherwise you wouldn't be reverting. Being right is not enough. You are surely aware of our edit warring rules, considering how you explicitly threatened the other editor with them. This is a continuation of an edit war from 29 May 2018. An edit war is not the way to solve your disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I talked to the user who kept repeating himself and linking to the source he found instead of understanding the Wikipedia reference policy. I know how time-consuming it is, convincing a stubborn user, so I gave up, hoping somebody else would fix the article. NO attempt to fix this obviously false transcription of Tolstoy's well-known Russian name which is supported by the very first links in the very same paragraph have been made since. Instead the lead was turned into something unreadable, with his original name being hidden in multiple "notes". And since the user simply reverted my edits and called me names again, I called it vandalism and gave warnings. After the third warning I would've reported the situation, which is another way of getting attention and what you are supposed to do instead of immediat blocking. Especially since I wasn't going to ask to block or sanction the user, but rather get an authoritative opinion. AveTory (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AveTory. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

So, are you going to respect WP:BLP and self-revert on the page? Ones again, the policy tells: " When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections ... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Your deletions are not good-faith. You are not the first timer here at Wikipedia and you know what's included into biographical articles and what's not, we had discussions about that several times. It is not even the first time you made changes to my edit - the previous day you deleted some of my text (which I don't mind after all), but was perfectly fine with the rest. What you are currently doing is vandalism. AveTory (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)