User talk:Toreeva

Welcome!

Hello, Toreeva, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Boris Pasternak has been reverted.
Your edit here to Boris Pasternak was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toreeva, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Toreeva! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New/old information for the Draft:Natalia Toreeva

This section is moved to a Sandbox: User:Toreeva/sandbox. Toreeva (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

This article is not about myself, but to show that the info in the Unofficial art in Russia article and in another articles, is contributed by the real person who was part of that movement. The article needs just to be improved and submitted in the format that appropriate to pass the requirements. But if you or someone will not have time, or for any other reason, to work on it, that's OK, even though it is the lost for the history of the Russian art, if look at the bigger picture. Toreeva (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, creating page Osip Sidlin or improving pages like Kazimir Malevich definitely could if that is your concern. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Softlavender, thanks for suggestion to move addition material about Draft to the Sandbox, so I did. Thanks for your input.Toreeva (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hta94, thanks for looking into it!Toreeva 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hello Lacypaperclip (talk), would you correct in the Article Natalia Toreeva the year in the references #6. It said 8 November 1920. Thanks for your input. Toreeva 04:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The date reads 8 November 1920. Is it supposed to be a different date? That date comes up when I check the source. Please let me know. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into the article, it is July 1971, so this date should be. Or you can leave the path as it was before the changes: http://smena-online.ru/stories/leto-71 Thanks a lot for help with your editing! Toreeva 05:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done You are welcome. Let me know if I can help with any other edit requests. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK now. I don't have any request for this article. Thanks! But I have a question: In the Soviet Unof. Art article, I found the way to connect en.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia if the artists have both, it is valuable information. For example, one artist just had exhibition in museum in St. Petersburg, and I'm going to write her to include this info to the ru wikipedia which she has, so we can read it outside of the Russia. But I don't like [ ] in [ ](ru). Do you know the way how to avoid [ ] and to have only (ru) in this connection of both wikipedia's? If you don't know, or don't have time, it is OK, at least it works. I just wanted to improve it. Thanks!Toreeva 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lacypaperclip (talk), I found the way to avoid extra [] for the ru wikipedia link, so I have only (ru) for it. You can see it as an example for E. Rukhin artist in the Soviet Nonc. Art article. Thanks.Toreeva 02:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

As per the talk page of Natalia Toreeva you are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest contenton the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be something big, I would ask independent editor to do so, but I just moved around, for example, to move ISBN number from one section to another. But thanks for your comments.12.50.32.250 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if you feel that the article needs any editing, please help with it. Thank you.12.50.32.250 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 A

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aleksei Yuryevich German, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk), Than you have to delete all other people by your approach. Stop doing retaliation. And do professional approach. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in " ..Art of Russia - did you check [19] where N.Toreeva's name included in St. Petersburg's encyclopedia as the student of School of Sidlin"? Why you need it in [24] citation, where it just shown the art work? Oh, it just shows again, you can't read in Russian. But to make the wise decision you have to know and understand Russian lang. and Russian art. Your retaliation attitude will not help. Stop doing what you are doing. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Toreeva. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Soviet Nonconformist Art, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. It is extremely bad form to continue to promote yourself across Wikipedia with poor sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk), I don't have any COI you are trying to put here. I try to help to preserve the HISTORY, but what is your goal behind retaliation for any course? Even if you will delete any name or art movement, you will delete it only from Wikipedia, but not from the HISTORY itself. So don't be proud of yourself, you do nothing, just damage the truth in Wikipedia. And stop discussion what I should do. It is not my interest. Good luck in your life. Enjoy. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you could try and stop attacking me and assume good faith for one minute (I have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart)...please could you list the three best sources for your own article Natalia Toreeva, the ones you consider to be in-depth and independent, it doesn't matter if they are in Russian or English. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No further discussion is needed. Waste time and energy. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Natalia Toreeva" has been deleted (11/9/2019), so NO need any further discussion about it.Toreeva (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 B

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Twenty Days Without War. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk), since you did not look into imdb.com as References, where the information is included (in English), I added Ru Wikipedia, where the same info about the film is included. Hope someone can read it in Russian. All info that included there can be verified. Just take your time to read or see the film. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that IMDb and Wikipedia are NOT reliable sources, we CANNOT use them in articles, whatever language they are written in! Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article about film has the same info in Ru Wikipedia I included there. If you think it is not reliable sources, than why the article exists and accepted by Ru Wikipedia? Probably someone wrote in both lang. and included the same info in both Ru and En wikipedia. I can include there another site: https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/44339/ where included also the info about film, cast and crew (in Russian), but I am sure you will not accepted it for any reason as well. So, whatever you want to do, do it, I don't have time and willingness to discuss it further. Regards, Toreeva (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Wikipedia has no connection to the English Wikipedia and sourcing standards are stronger on the English version, KinoPoisk is a Russian equivalent of IMDb and is not a reliable source, because it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in En wikipedia page you have already IMDb, so why you not accept it as the source? Stop attacking me. And write that you don't accept whatever is in Ru Wikipedia and Ru sources. They are official sources. Than I will submit to investigate it to verify if it is correct your statement to reject any of my input.Toreeva (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't want to communicate with you anymore. You have only one goal in your mind - reject my input by any way. Stop staking me. I am done. I have no interest in any discussion.Toreeva (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is used as an external link in that article, not a reference. If you would like independent advice you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Theroadislong (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with it. Good luck.Toreeva (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly attack good faith editors here. Despite your years of editing, you still fail to grasp the absolute basics of editing Wikipedia. User's do not require any specialist knowledge, all we do is report on what reliable sources have said about a subject, if there are no such sources then we cannot add the content. I am not retaliating, I sympathise with your quest to be published on Wikipedia but unless you can provide suitable sources it isn't going to happen and nobody including you has managed to find those sources yet. I wish you well in your artistic endeavours. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Toreeva! You created a thread called Why my Feedback input to Teahouse was deleted? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 C

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy Macon lacked diplomacy in using that (standardized) warning. Nonetheless, I would encourage you to reconsider the way you interact with other editors.

You can ask that someone stop posting on your talk page. However, you cannot ask that others refrain from editing articles you started or contributed to (see Wikipedia:Ownership), and you cannot ask to be left alone while you do mistakes (see Wikipedia:Communication is required). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see zero need for diplomacy when dealing with an editor who writes things like

"How 'low' you can go? Not me. Where is the purpose in your life, God has given you? Where is your integrity? You reached your destination. Have a peace in your decision"

and

"..unqualified editors ([name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted]) started deleting my input without good faith... I don't know what motive of using the editor's power is behind of it, but I tiered of this unqualified editing and unneeded discussion and accusations".

I know an Internet Flamer when I see one. These flamers have typically had some success at beating down their "enemies" with insults and aggression on Usenet, Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and YouTube comments. When they fire up their flamethrowers on Wikipedia, they either quickly figure out that we don't allow such behavior and stop, or they get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon (talk),Tigraan (talk), If you would follow the problem I have from the beginning, you would understand the problem. People asked me to do contributions to Unofficial art in Russia article, because in Russia almost no one knows English, and the Art Movement of 1970-80 just started to be opened to the public. So, it would be a good info for the scholars. So, I did my input and also created the article about the author, so people would know that it is a real person behind that article and art movement. And editor suggested to use Help desk to help in editing. So, I did, and they started deleting very important info from the article, as the education, membership, participating in exhibitions etc, nothing left. He also started deleting in other articles where the name was mentioned. I asked him why he deleted if in Ru wikipedia someone included the name, he said - ru wikipedia is not reliable. All deletion was done as not reliable sources and promotion. I have real docs where the art works were accepted in 5 museums, the person is the member of Artists Trade Union of Russia, Russian database, where shown the real films with her name is in the titles. If the editor(s) would know Russian lang and art of that time, it would not be a problem, bec. all docs and citations are real. Or to see the movie(s) and see the titles there. But because the editor(s) don't know Russian lang, it is easier to just delete the article with any course saying not reliable. And because of it, I submitted complains, so that editors started in my opinion, retaliation, voting, so the article was deleted. And I told them that you can delete the name from wikipedia, but not from the History. I am not going to fight for restore, it is just a shame to use power of editor(s) to do whatever they want to do. That's why I don't want to be a part of wikipedia anymore and I am not planning to participate in any future contribution.That's why I wanted to delete my account in wikipedia, and the same editor deleted that request. So, because wikipedia don't permit to delete my account, I am not planning to participate in my contribution. I am done. Thank you for your time.Toreeva (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are leaving a lot, but you never actually leave.

"I am done. I have no interest in any discussion." --Toreeva, 23:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
"I don't want to be a Contributor anymore to this 'charitable' org. I am done with it." --Toreeva, 17:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am done with it" --Toreeva, 17:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am done with it" --Toreeva, 17:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am not planning to do the contributions anymore...I am done." --Toreeva, 19:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
"I don't want to continue the discussion. I don't see the respect and see only waste of time. I am out of it." --Toreeva, 03:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am not planning to participate in my contribution. I am done." --Toreeva, 18:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;

And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,

or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;

'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."

--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel

Free clue: Go to your user page. Delete everything. Go to your user talk page. Delete everything. Log out of Wikipedia forever and never look at those two pages again.

Or you can stay, keep insulting people, and see what happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Participation

Since I will stop my participation in Wikipedia, I am asking you not to include your input in this Talk page, because I am not planning to do my contributions, and I will not read any input you might want to include here. So, no more talk or discussion here. Thank you,Toreeva (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are talking about. Are you asking everybody to not post to your talk page?

Again: Go to your user page. Delete everything. Go to your user talk page. Delete everything. Log out of Wikipedia forever and never look at those two pages again. Nobody will post anything to your talk page if you actually "stop your participation in Wikipedia" instead of just talking about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example why I don't want to do my contributions anymore. If you look into article "Soviet Nonconformist Art", where I did my contributions, specifically in St. Petersburg and "School of Sidlin" sections, the name of the school and his students were included in the following citation - http://www.encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru. This citation is from St. Petersburg Russian encyclopedia and it was deleted. Another citations also were deleted. And the name N.Toreeva as artist was deleted at all. All under "not reliable sources". You can look it at 17:36, 22 November 2019. And after I mentioned it, Theroadislong and others put it as I am attacking the editors. Who can verify the correctness of his deletion, and what is behind of it, personal satisfaction, politics, retaliation, bias etc? But definitely not the good faith? Nobody, trying even look into this matter. That's why, I am not going fight because I don't see to find the "truth" is the goal here. This is an example of wrong doing, and I don't want to be part of it. Thanks for your time. My best regards,Toreeva (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the best way to stop your participation in Wikipedia is to stop your participation in Wikipedia. I'm just saying. If you are unwilling to do that, could you please stop saying that you are leaving? It is getting to be really annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stop my participation. It is annoying for you, but distraction for me, so I thought to give at least one example of wrong doing by Wikipedia's editor(s), to delete the content w/o knowledge of the original language the citations are written, without knowledge of the Soviet Art, and without any support of others to resolve the problem. Happy Thanksgiving and X-Mas!Toreeva (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are not stopping participation. If you want to find another topic to edit, fine. If you want to keep trying to cite yourself or otherwise being disruptive and failing to assume good faith in areas where you have a conflict of interest, you need to stop participating. If you cannot stop such "participation," you will be made to stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 A

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk), stop telling me what to do. This is not promotion or ad. Don't you see that your citation was put 2 times repeatedly (30 and 31)? That's why I substituted it by another, not poorly but the good one. Oh..Toreeva (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:[1]

Revert:[2]

Original Ref: [3]

Refs Toreeva replaced it with:[4][5][6]

Google translate:[7][8][9]

In my opinion, this situation needs to be escalated to WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon (talk), you put already your opinion to your Talk page suggesting already to Theroadislong to do the same. Nothing new. Instead to be objective, and to bring the editor(s) who knows Russian lang and culture, it is easier to just delete it. What a shame for Wikipedia to have these kind of editors who use their editor's power to be biases and w/o good faith. You have to be supportive that I found another citations that can be used for the article. What is the disappointment.Toreeva (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said "I stop my participation".[10] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 B

There have been ongoing problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising and self-promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your career, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page.

For years, you have engaged in self-promotion on Wikipedia, and have continued despite promises to stop. No more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Supart_41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Wrong reason to block

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to convince you why you block my input, it is waste time, if you did not see it before. But main problem is that you have editor(s) who don't know Russian lang. to read the citations and Soviet Culture to estimate the value of my contributions. Small example of it: if you see the article and "Publications and late Exhibition" section the citation (65) shows "failed verification", but if you read citation there 2 names correctly mentioned (ru:Анатолия Басина и Наталии Тореевой..) meaning that the editor can't read Russian text, so how editing can be done w/o knowledge the lang.? That's why easier to tell that the article is self promotion which is not true. But suggestion to use another user name is correct, bec. it puts off the editor(s) to hunting my real name.

Also you mentioned the "Compensation for contribution". Who should compensate? There is NO business or any ad for the company in the article. No Company even exists in the article, because it is the Art movement of 1970-80 I contributed in the article, so "NO" is the answer for this question.

If I will contribute in future, I am willing to contribute only to the Art in general, specifically to the Soviet time, which I am familiar with before my emigration to USA. Or any items written using the Russian citations but need some corrections. Or will not contribute at all. Thank you for your time.Toreeva (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It was not necessary to be blocked.

Decline reason:

Criticizing other users, then claiming you did nothing wrong is not going to get you unblocked. You still have not addressed the reason for the block, the spam/advertising edits you made. You need to address these, NOT the conduct of other editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I forgot to add the reason why I should be unblocked. I did not do any damage or disruption to the article. I did not do anything wrong, but because my criticism of the editor(s) who used their editors power to put me out of my contributions due to their personal or political interests w/o knowledge of Russian language and culture, they tried to block me. It was not for the incorrect content of the articles in my contributions or promotional reason, but for my criticism of editor(s) actions. That's why I ask to be unblocked.Toreeva (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toreeva, right after being told...

"Criticizing other users, then claiming you did nothing wrong is not going to get you unblocked. You still have not addressed the reason for the block, the spam/advertising edits you made. You need to address these, NOT the conduct of other editors."

...you decided that it was a good idea to respond by criticizing other users, claiming you did nothing wrong. and not addressing the spam/advertising edits you made? ಠ_ಠ

In my opinion the time has come to revoke Toreeva's talk page access. he us either unwilling or unable to follow the simplest of instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon (talk), Do you think to talk like "the spam/advertising edits you made" is the right way you talk with the contributor? What a shame Wikipedia should have and those who involved in it.Toreeva (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Guy. Seeing as they clearly are ignoring the spam edits at this point, I've revoked talk page access. No need to continue with this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]