User talk:Ru magister

Welcome!

Hello, Ru magister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Ryzhenkova Solidarnost 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryzhenkova Solidarnost 2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join WikiProject Russia

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.

|As you have shown an interest in 2008 South Ossetia War we thought you might like to take an interest in this WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to AboveNet has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. MaenK.A._Talk 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at AboveNet. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at AboveNet. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

All I did was preventing of disruption

Decline reason:

That does not justify edit warring. Sandstein 22:42, 19 February 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Now this article vandalized. Please protect article or unblock me.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Whether there is here some human, not bot? The block was made in error (you can see evidence in the article), now the article under the reign of trolls.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2010 (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.

In a three day period, you reverted the Article (removed text with reference) some 28 times, and were even blocked for 24hours of that period. This was a severe violation of WP:3RR. You also made no attempt during that time to discuss the edits with users on the talk page - Wikipedia pages are constructed by consensus, not by a single editor's point of view. Your edits were reverted by a total of 13 different editors...

82.80.186.51 (Israel)
User:Stiver (de)
89.162.153.66 (Ukraine)
User:Serg3d2
User:Madhero88
24.47.254.67 (United States Brooklyn)
198.188.210.25 (United States Los Angeles - Community College)
User:Zelinsky
213.156.205.237 (Russia - kraft-s.net)
198.188.210.53 (United States Los Angeles)
86.62.85.33 (Russia - rinet.ru)
66.81.196.31 (United States Los Angeles - 01.com)
User:Tikki Rikki

Are you therefore suggesting that you are correct and these 13 editors are not? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct and these 13 editors are not. About 3RR - Ok. Магистер (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now this article in hands of Eastmain, my participation is not required, the block is no longer necessary: I understood WP:3RR and will not repeat that.

Decline reason:

No, sorry - the way you phrase the beginning of this, it makes it sound like you would have done the same thing again in other circumstances. I am not therefore convinced that you truly do understand both WP:3RR and WP:EW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 23 February 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I know about WP:3RR (now) and I know about WP:SD - so I have no need in an edit war.

Decline reason:

This still doesn't convince me that unblocking you is a good idea; it says nothing to the fact that you understand 3RR and edit warring (knowing and understanding are two different things), that you won't do this again, nor that you will make positive contributions here. I don't see what speedy deletion has anything to do with this situation, either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Because of a lack of experience I used WP:3RR instead WP:SD. Obviously I will not make the same error. [Only another...] I not understand you in "you will make positive contributions here" - I have made only positive contribution here.

Decline reason:

Yes, you evidently don't understand. Talk page access revoked. Sandstein 17:04, 26 February 2010 (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.

Look, you obviously do not clearly understand WP:3RR and WP:EW if you believe that you have "only made positive contributions". This block is because you did not make positive contributions. Your continued insistence that you have made only positive contributions based on that is the concern: it shows that you believe that your edit-warring was a necessity. I was originally thinking "unblock him, as long as he stays away from AboveNet", but clearly, you feel that edit-warring is a necessity and that WP:CONSENSUS means little - this is the wrong attitude to have. All we have are frivolous unblock requests, which usually lead to the locking of a talkpage. I believe that you may have positive things to add to Wikipedia somewhere - show us a really valid reason to unblock you so that we can test that hypothesis. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This block is because I did make positive contributions by incorrect method.

1. Do you think the protection Wiki from vandals is not necessity?
2. Example of my not-positive contributions, please.
3. As I said, with WP:SD I have no need in edit-warring. 95.221.64.41 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

It was appropriate use of user talk page

Decline reason:

Request made by an IP. f o x (formerly garden) 20:40, 26 February 2010 (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.