User talk:Александр Мотин/Archive/2016-20

Discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incident

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incident. Mamasanju (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 FIFA Confederations Cup: Other stuff exists

Just letting you know regarding an edit you made to the article, linking a country violates WP:OVERLINK. This is what Walter is trying to tell us.

~~I am currently seeking a consensus on that article's talk page on this matter.~~ Please respect that Walter is enforcing the guideline and read it before readding the edit. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay

While I reverted you there, I invite you to the discussion on talk about which pictures should illustrate this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Александр Мотин. 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)[reply]

Autopatrolled removed

Hi, I have removed autopatrolled from your account due to the quality of your recent article creations - this does not affect your ability to create articles, but allows other editors a chance to improve recent creations. Please take a moment to re-familiarise yourself with the expected quality of new articles, and please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any help. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing more from you in the future -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Azerbaijan opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Railway stations in Azerbaijan opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. feminist (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pur (Belgaum) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pur (Belgaum) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pur (Belgaum) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Telegram Open Network

Hello Александр Мотин,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Telegram Open Network for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MotinBot

Hello Александр Мотин! While doing periodic cleanups I found a bot account of yours: MotinBot that does not appear to have been used since: 20110103122823. Have you retired this bot and no longer require a bot flag for it? Please ping me if replying here. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Hello! A bot flag can be dismissed.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Should you ever want to reactivate your bot please make a request to review and re-approve it at WP:BRFA. Best wishes, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tverskaya Zastava Square moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Tverskaya Zastava Square, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:List of longest bridges, Vasco da Gama Bridge, Crimean Bridge]], 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.--Germash19 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that in Russian Wikipedia you also aggressively pushed pseudofacts into the article about Crimean Bridge. It seems that the administrator of Russian WP did not take your side [1]. And it is obvious that after effective complaint against your actions [2] you want to assert yourself here by bothering me. Poor fellow...--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

«Pseudofacts» confirmed by reliable sources...--Germash19 (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why administrators of the Russian Wikipedia did not take them into account? :)--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These «pseudofacts» are present in the in Russian article.

--Germash19 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit by topic-starter in fact violates months-long status-quo about the lead. So, I had to revert it and tweak (along lines of Ruwiki, which also softens statement from is ("является") to "is considered to be" ("считается"). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is the longest bridge in Europe. Thank you for taking my point :)--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Александр Мотин. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Александр Мотин. 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)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Vasco da Gama Bridge, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Germash19 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page [3]. Feel offended that you failed to push misinformation into the Russian Wikipedia about the bridge [4]? :)

Warning

Last warning. If you continue to delete the text, I will write a request to the administrators.--Germash19 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

restored to consensus version--Александр Мотин (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a denunciation to administrators. --Germash19 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will be blocked for disruptive editing.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Tverskaya Zastava Square) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tverskaya Zastava Square.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Kamaz Master) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Kamaz Master.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good stub - you should add more information about their victories, especially Paris Dakar? thanks

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sochi airport

I saw your entry in the article for the busiest European airports. I agree that Sochi airport is European but your reference (http://aer.aero/en/airport/press/news/mezhdunarodnyy-aeroport-sochi-stal-luchshim-aeroportom-evropy-v-reytinge-po-kachestvu-obsluzhivaniya/) is misleading because it says Ankara airport is also Europe, which is not. In former times, there was a huge edit war in that article (see the history) about which airports are European and which are not. In the end, the consensus was that one has to follow the geographical criteria. It turns out, Sochi lies in the south of the Great Caucasus ridge, therefore it's formally not Europe.
The same is Russian, just to make clear:
Я видел изменение, сделанное Вами, в статье про европейские аэропорты. Я то тоже согласен, что аэропорт в Сочи должен бы был там быть, но вот по ссылке написано, что и Анкара - европейский аэропорт, что неверно. Поэтому эта ссылка, выходит, не очень хорошая. К тому же в этой статье был уже большой срач и война и исправлений за то, какие аэропорты включать в рейтинг. В итоге решили, что нужно пользоваться географическими определениями, принятыми в Википедии. А по ним выходит, что граница Европы проходит по Большому Кавказскому Хребту, а Сочи лежит южнее его! Поэтому советую Вам сочинский аэропорт убрать от греха подальше, а то опять начнётся срач, т.к. некоторые начинают и турецкие аэропорты туда пихать, и Кипрские, и Канарские (типа Евросюз) и т.д.

@Kostja1975: Hello Kostja! First of all you need to provide RS that Sochi airport is in Asia. If you look at the map of Europe you will also see that Sochi is in Europe. --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was surprised too, but then I did look on the map! Is the Big Russian Encyclopeadia (Большая Российская Энциклопедия) a reliable source? Please have a look on the first map in the article: https://bigenc.ru/geography/text/1877178

(https://bigenc.ru/media/2016/10/27/1235158279/%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%AC%D0%A8%D0%9E%D0%99%20%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%92%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%97.jpg). Sochi is clearly to the south of the Big Caucasian ridge (Большой Кавказский Хребет, водораздел). Thus, Sochi is in fact in Asia.

@Kostja1975: No, you misunderstood my request. You need to provide RS that would claim that Sochi airport is located in Asia. Otherwise you will continue to refer to outdated ideas about the boundaries between Europe and Asia. Perhaps this article (Boundaries between the continents of Earth) will answer all your questions on the geographical part. I, again, would like to see reliable sources about the airport's location allegedly in Asia since this map of Europe points to the fact that Sochi is in Europe. And it does not matter that there are some alternative and not common views on the border between Europe and Asia. --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the alternatives. I know this article ((Boundaries between the continents of Earth), it says, I quote for you: "The modern border follows (....) the watershed of the Greater Caucasus", it is reliable of course. Sochi is obviously to the south of the Greater Caucasus (Большой Кавказский Хребет)! Or do you claim, Sochi is to the north of the Great Caucasus Range?

@Kostja1975: The Great Russian Encyclopedia says (since you're referring to it) that the Watershed of the Greater Caucasus starts from Chugush [5] and lies to the South-East. And as you can see Sochi and the airport are not in the South (as you said) but in the South-West from Chugush. So here is a refutation of what you call the obvious. What I have said now fully confirms the way the boundaries are depicted on this map in the article about Europe — File:Europe orthographic Caucasus Urals boundary (with borders).svg --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to a very small map (File:Europe orthographic Caucasus Urals boundary (with borders).svg), which is not RS. The Russian wikipedia article (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B8_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B9) has 2 much better maps. Both of them clearly show Sochi as Asia. If you believe it's not, try to edit that Russian article, we will see, how the contributors react there :)

Proposed deletion of Mosvodokanal

The article Mosvodokanal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in the "List of Wikipedians by article count" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4900:43F:CC:2223:3E19:6549 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Stickee (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

Hi! Just a note that there's no need to ping me on the talk page, I still keep an eye on the page. Stickee (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Commenting re this edit undoing this revert. The edit summary of the revert said that it was removing content which was given undue weight. Your unrevert did not address that but, instead, argued that the restored content relied on a primary source. However, the source cited was a secondary source -- a report of a briefing at which info from a primary source had been presented and interpreted. I would prefer not to get involved in this, so I'm commenting here instead of on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: Regarding this edit, it is NOT a secondary source! It is an official transcript of that briefing on the Russian MoD's website (in English as well) [6]. So would you please reinstate my version then.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: Regarding this edit [7] I have NEVER told that a primary source was used. I have said "primary radar data" and never said "primary source".--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case status

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	14 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Wikibenboy94 (t)	12 minutes
Talk:Alba Party	Closed	2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (t)	4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to tell involved parties about this. I have now done so for you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will advise you to drop all of this now, edit warring, not telling users about DRN's all look iffy. I am not sure you are on a winner here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now a relaunched ANI, this really is not a good idea. I susgest you close that, and the DRN and just accept you do not have wp:consensus and edit less contentious topics.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: This topic is not connected to an AN/I request.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the ANI is not about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I request is about disruptive editing. Please stop trying to attack me.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not I am warning you, but fine. My last word, here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 00:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: But why? --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the complaints noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_Boomerang_block. El_C 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Because of "I have no time to explain" or what? I don't understand. What did I do wrong? Would you explain this, please? --Александр Мотин (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have exhausted our collective patience. El_C 01:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't understand. What did I do wrong? I didn't insult anyone, I didn't attack anyone unlike the opposing editors. You suggested WP:DR, I did so. --Александр Мотин (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make bogus reports on ANI, you run the risk of a WP:BOOMERANG. El_C 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are others allowed to insult and make attacks, and my request has become bogus? Why have I put up with this attitude?--Александр Мотин (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in responding to rhetorical questions. But I'll say this: your report was bogus and pointing out your disruption is not an attack. El_C 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reported because the opposing editor's edits fell under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and I did what WP:DDE said. Explain, please, why then was it bogus since I followed the instructions? Why they wrote those instructions if they are bogus? Oh gosh. --Александр Мотин (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help if your read of policy is so out of step with Wikipedia norms. Also, if you refactor one more reply, as you have done with every single comment here thus far, I will no longer respond to you. There is a limit to how many edit conflicts I'm willing to endure. Please just proofread better before submitting. El_C 01:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will break my statement and try to explain, note I will not reply.

A. When half a dozen editors tell you you are wrong it is wp:tenditious editing to continue to labour the point.

B. When you are told (by the same editors) this has been disused over the course of years and they have always rejected the same arguments it is wp:disruptive to continue to argue your case.

C. When multiple admins tell you "there is not case to answer" saying "but will you ban them" multiple times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and may be seen as an example of vexatious reporting.

D. Trying to argue that reporting separate users over the same issue at different venues is not the same issue can be seen as wp:forumshopping (also see C above), as well as WP:LAWYERING.

E. Posting DS alerts are not attacks against you, they are informing you there are special measures in place (see C above as well).

There are more but this will do. You have to explain how you did not breach these (and note wp:appeal), it has to be about you, solely you and just you).Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think that wp:spa might have had some impact since the 18 April 2020 literally all your edits have been related in some way to this one page. This is why you have only had a (very narrow) wp:TBAN, but it did appear to have become an obsession with you. I think (therefore) that there may have been a case of getting you off that page before you developed into an SPA and got a wider site ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a topic ban, but an indefinite block from editing that article (mainspace). I may still close that ANI report as a full topic ban, however, if disruptive or tendentious editing continue on the article talk page. In that sense, administrative enforcement here was especially lenient. Please do not squander that opportunity, Александр Мотин. El_C 15:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Бук

Александр, Бук 312 вообще на данный момент не имеет никакого отношения к крушениу Боинга. У установки которая сбила Боинг цифра по середне была стёрта, поэтому о нём говорили "Бук 3х2". Было выдвинуто много теории на счёт его происхождения, многие оказались тупиками, поскольку Буков с этими цифрами было замечено как минимум семь. "Бук 312 СБУ" был или их вбросом или их ошибкой. "Бук 312 с Ясинуватой" снятый в Украине был выложен летом 2014 но снят как вы заметили зимой, то есть не имел никакого отношения к Буку 3х2. Но это два (или один) проявления Буков, а их было всего семь. Все они анализировались вот здесь https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2016/05/03/the_lost_digit_ru/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/09/8188/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ где разбираются и с вопросом "Бук 312 и Бук 332" а также сравнивают все 7 явлений Бука. В просепарастических кругах все остановились на "СБУ НАВРАЛО ПРО БУК 312 ХАХАХА" потому что это последний тупик который давал ещё какие то шансы оправдать сепаратистов. Только факт, что СБУ ошибилось ило соврало тогда в 2014 году никак не противоречит доказалтельствам которые были собраны в 2014-2019 годах и подробно проанализированные и я не вижу никакого смысла загразнять текущую статью вбросами так слева как и справа с которыми следствие уже давно разобралось. Cloud200 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud200, привет еще раз! Если не против, то на "ты". Слушай, ну смотри, я вообще не утверждаю и не утверждал, что Бук 312 сбивал малайзийский боинг. Моя тема на СО статьи совсем о другом. Я поднял серьезный вопрос о том, что касается предполагаемой фальсификации СБУ "неопровержимых доказательств", представленных мировой общественности 19 июля 2014 на специальном брифинге или как там у них это называлось. В общем суть следующая, представитель СБУ сказал, что вот эти Буки, что были там на фотографиях, +1 Бук и +1 командный пункт Бука были переправлены в Россию в ночь сразу после сбития малайзийского боинга. Но блогеры из Bellingcat с этим не согласились и выпустили отчет, на который я дал ссылку, о том, что тот Бук 312, который, как сказали из СБУ, был якобы переправлен в Россию 18 июля 2014 года, на самом деле в Россию не переправлялся, а все время, как я понял из их отчета, был подконтролен армии Украины. Кроме того, Bellingcat подтвердили, что фото Бука 312 на ночном фоне сделано не в ночь после сбития боинга, а 19 марта 2014. Но еще раз подчеркну, что я вообще не утверждаю и не утверждал, что Бук 312 сбивал малайзийский боинг. Я, как минимум, на данный момент не видел объективных свидетельств этому ни в одном источнике. Надеюсь, смог развеять некоторые твои сомнения. --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Shall this discussion in Russian be auto translated and posted here? Is it allowed to leave it like this?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the English wiki, so for the rest of us it should be in English.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auto translation: Alexander, Buk 312 in general at the moment has nothing to do with the crash of a Boeing. At the installation that brought down the Boeing, the figure in the middle was erased, so they said "Buk 3x2" about it. A lot of theory was put forward regarding its origin, many turned out to be dead ends, since at least seven Bukov with these numbers were noticed. "Buk 312 SBU" was either their stuffing or their mistake. "Buk 312 with Yasinuvata" shot in Ukraine was posted in the summer of 2014 but shot as you noticed in the winter, that is, it had nothing to do with Buk 3x2. But these are two (or one) manifestations of Bukov, and there were only seven of them. All of them were analyzed here https://ru.bellingcat.com/novosti/russia/2016/05/03/the_lost_digit_ru/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/09 / 8188 / https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ where they understand the question "Buk" 312 and Beech 332 "and also compare all 7 appearances of the Beech. In proseparastic circles, everyone stopped at "SBU BECAUSE ABOUT BEECH 312 HAHAHA" because this is the last dead end that gave some more chances to justify the separatists. Only the fact that the SBU was mistaken and it lied then in 2014 does not contradict the evidence that was collected in 2014-2019 and analyzed in detail and I see no reason to pollute the current article with throws so left and right as the investigation has long dealt with. Cloud200 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cloud200, hello again! If not opposed, then to "you." Look, look, I’m not saying or claiming that Buk 312 shot down a Malaysian Boeing. My topic on the CO article is about something else. I raised a serious question about the alleged falsification of the SBU of "irrefutable evidence" presented to the world public on July 19, 2014 at a special briefing or whatever they called it. In general, the essence is the following, the representative of the SBU said that these Buki, who were there in the photographs, +1 Buk and +1 Buk command post were transferred to Russia on the night immediately after the Malaysian Boeing was shot down. But the bloggers from Bellingcat did not agree with this and issued a report to which I gave a link that the Buk 312, which, as they said from the SBU, was supposedly transported to Russia on July 18, 2014, was not actually sent to Russia , and all the time, as I understood from their report, it was controlled by the Ukrainian army. In addition, Bellingcat confirmed that the Buk 312 photo on the night background was not taken the night after the downing of the Boeing, but on March 19, 2014. But I emphasize once again that I did not state or claim that Buk 312 shot down the Malaysian Boeing. At least at the moment I have not seen objective evidence of this in any source. I hope I could dispel some of your doubts. --Alexander Motin (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

BLUDGEONING

Stop now over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It has been explained to you why we do not support your suggestions. So stop arguing the same rejected arguments over and over again. If you keep on I will take you to ANI for wp:tenditious editing. I suggest you drop this topic area and contribute elsewhere. This is my last and final word on the subject (here or at the articles talk page), next time I respond it will be at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have proper arguments - don't threaten me. I have already corrected several significant factual errors in the article while you have had 6 years to correct them. And now you are blaming me for that. If you were more convincing I'd be gladder. P.S. WP:CTDAPE. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And got a partial block, and if you keep on saying we cite a tweet when we do not wp:nothere will earn you a block. I suggest you move on.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I advise you to be polite.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What have I said that is rude?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose a boomerang block, just to be clear.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your call. MY last word, here. If you want to report me go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ICity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A121 highway (Russia) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, A121 highway (Russia), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. b uidhe 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuryanovo railway station

″returned better image″ — а чего оно лучше? С такими камерами можно было сделать и лучше фотографию без перекошенных таблиц и поездов. Я в отличие от вас даже на самой станции был. P.S. Заблокировали бессрочно в Русской Википедии, переместились сюда? А если здесь заблокируют, куда пойдёте? =) --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brateevsky: Использованное мной изображение лучше подходит для карточки. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Оно ″лучше подходит для карточки", только потому что загрузили его вы. Аргументы из серии "мне хочется". Понятно всё с вами. А вот если этих фото с mos.ru не было, взяли бы всё равно сделанное мной. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

В отсутствие лучших изображений пришлось бы. Впрочем, спасибо, что делаете свои изображения, иногда они пригождаются. Я тоже время от времени фоткаю сам если нет свободных, а потом заменяю если появляются лучше. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brateevsky: у вас какие-то претензии к моему вкладу? Непонятен ваш выпад в мой адрес с насмешливым тоном.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Есть претензии: отменили мою правку в статье Southern Rocade, причём сделали это не в мае, а сегодня, то есть нашли мой вклад в статье (судя по всему в вашем СН). Причём ладно бы просто отмену фото сделали, нет — надо отменить всю правку, сделанную участником. Статья же ″моя″, я в ней хозяин. Таким образом, приближаясь к тому, о чём я сказал в предпоследнем предложении первого абзаца. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brateevsky: Вам стоило добавить свое фото в галерею рядом, а не менять добавленное мной изображение, тогда бы мне не пришлось читать подобные необоснованные претензии в свой адрес. Уровень английского языка подтяните, пишите статьи и размещайте в них сделанные вами изображения как вам угодно, кто мешает? P.S. "Приближалка" у вас маловата будет.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow International Business Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hotel Ukraina. 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) 06:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Александр_Мотин reported by User:Zoozaz1 (Result: ). Thank you. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at COVID-19 vaccine, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Russian sources are unreliable and unreviewed by the international science community. You are spreading Russian propaganda. Zefr (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Boring.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at COVID-19 vaccine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Still bored.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: you better calm down, because it's not going to end well for you --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RexxS (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Yeah, I was the one who started the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and also the one who added "which does not have any side effects" without proper sourcing. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: AFAIR, I have never written articles about vaccines or drugs. I saw your message on the article's talk page after that. I didn't want to misinform anyone. By the way, is it allowed to remove warning messages [8]?--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alert is intended to help you understand that COVID-19 articles are currently under restrictions more severe than for ordinary articles, so you won't accidentally cross a line. It is allowed for an editor to remove almost anything from their talk page, including any warnings, That is taken as a sign that they acknowledge the warning, and of course it remains in the talk page history. What is strongly frowned upon is if you re-add content that an editor has removed from their own talk page. You might want to apologise to Zefr and explain that you were unaware of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines #Personal talk page cleanup. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did it [9]. Thank you for your kind attitude to me.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken out your additions to the lead of Coronavirus disease 2019 as WP:UNDUE. The lead of an article has to be a summary of the most significant content in the rest of the article and it should not contain content that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article (see WP:LEAD). As your first step, you should suggest on the talk page that the Coronavirus disease 2019 #Vaccine section ought to contain some content about the vaccine being registered/approved for use in Russia. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Александр_Мотин reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Александр. It seems you have broken the WP:3RR with your recent edits, according to the four diffs provided. It would be reasonable to close the edit warring complaint without a block if you would agree not to edit the article for a week. Personally I take no position on all the matters raised in the ANI, I am only viewing this as an edit warring problem. We need to become convinced you will not continue the war at Gam-COVID-Vac, or on the topic of this vaccine anywhere else. You could still post on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Will you agree if I will not be editing the article for a day to show my good faith? I think that one week it is too long since the article is a current event and I'm a very active and productive editor there? What do you think?--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is necessary. It would be consistent with the offer that I frequently make to other contributors who are over 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Alright. I do this to show my good faith--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you also agreeing not to edit anywhere in article space on the topic of the Russian vaccine, for the same week duration? You can still use any talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]