User talk:IntrepidContributor

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

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your old account?

What is your old account? You probably need to inform the admins (not sure of the procedure) so as not to be blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Хто ти? Чому ви хочете знати мої дані? Ви з Донецька чи Луганська? IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to inform you of the rules here. If you truly don't have access to your old account, you should inform the admins so that there is no risk of being blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but which rule is that? I haven't even used my old account in years. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:SOCKLEGIT. From WP's standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you've used your old account recently or not - if you don't identify it, there's always the chance you'll be blocked for socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I will read it. Do you think there is anything illegitimate about my account? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I think isn't really at issue here. Someone else might.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was anything wrong until I read these evasive non-answers. Something is definitely up. Wes sideman (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered that I have no connection to the account you are pursuing. I have nothing to hide and there are no rules requiring me to answer you. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... Do you have nothing to hide or are you hiding your former account because no rule requires you to answer the question? Those two are mutually exclusive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hiding my account. I have done nothing wrong and you are not administrators so you have no business here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a previous account and you aren't disclosing it, you are doing something wrong.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules. I haven't even logged into my old account in years. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the rule you're referring to?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its written in WP:SOCKLEGIT as a clean start. My old account was mostly Russian contributions and no blocks. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at

Anatoly Levin-Utkin

(July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JBW was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

To be considered notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person needs to have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable publications unconnectted to that person.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Anatoly Levin-Utkin
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:Anatoly Levin-Utkin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JBW (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IntrepidContributor! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JBW (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppet report

ha ha

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/666hopedieslast 666hopedieslast (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Do not remove maintenance templates without first resolving the issues. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Netherzone, Please consider starting a discussion on the talk page or the article you would like to append unsightly tags to. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

They are rather tricky. See

Adakiko thanks. I seen this code before but forgot. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more RS that describe him as a purveyor of disinformation and propaganda? Might be good to include others. One seems marginal for this claim. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best RS that describe him as a purveyor of disinformation and propaganda is this Zabrona article, but there was a very strange debate about it [2] [3], and I do not want to go back into that dispute. I think the consensus is that it is reliable and you can add it to the page if you want. Beware you may be accused of being a sock. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use peoples non participation in a discussion as evidence against them, it might be a good idea if you notified them about said discussion before doing so. Not everyone watches every single page on Wikipedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't submit any complaints that required evidence of misconduct. I asked the people (Ermenrich and Rosguill) who didn't participate to participate and I pinged them on the article chat page [4]. I want to avoid further waste of volunteer time on this. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About 15 minutes before you posted this "Neither Ermenrich or Rosguill participated in the discussion before reverting this editor." which is incorrect as the edit war block was the day before (thus the revert must have been). Nor are they required to participate, as a revert is enough to express dissent. Also Ermenrich did participate [[5]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich participated only by stating that a consensus wasn't reached, which does not constitute participation in the discussion. To date, neither Ermenrich or Rosguill have participated in the discussion as BRD requires. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penjor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—Caorongjin 💬 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I see anything like this again I will block your account. Thank you for understanding. Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I'm not seeing any impersonation in this diff. Perhaps ErnestKrause misread this diff, or maybe they linked the wrong diff and impersonation occurred in a different one? In the linked diff, IntrepidContributor appears to revert ErnestKrause's closure of the discussion and move Ernest's closure opinion into the discussion itself so that it's not lost. Ernest's signature is kept and his comment isn't refactored. Although the discussion's initial proposal garnered little support it did instigate conversation and it seems as though a productive idea might have come out of it, nobody has restored the closure, so Intrepid's re-opening of the thread looks reasonable to me. Pinging Ermenrich as a courtesy as I see this was discussed on their talk page initially. Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I probably also misread the diff, without an appropriate edit summery it looks to me like impersonation. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter I can understand why it looked bad as impersonation, but why did you check it more thoroughly and give a warning first? Did I say something somewhere else you didn't like? IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what else I should have checked? If someone would undo my close and post the close to the discussion adding my signature I would probably go straight to ANI. Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Why did you threaten administrator action without first warning me? Second question, why aren't you apologising or providing guidance to me about edit summaries even though you acknowledge to Jr8825 that you misread my intention? IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that your action was completely inappropriate? Yes or no answer, please. Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Threatening by administrator action" is in fact a warning. Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not answering my question. Given that I had prepared a carefully worded response of my own, my revert of Ernest's hasty Wikipedia:Non-admin closure was entirely appropriate. Your assertion that your threat to use administrator action was "in fact" a warning, doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially since you admitted above that you misread my intention. Please either answer my initial question or apologise for threatening to block me based on your misreading of my edit, otherwise I will file a complaint about your conduct here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File a complaint. Your action was inappropriate. My warning stands. Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote from the policy which states that undoing a hasty non-admin closure is "inappropriate"? IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not just undoing a non-admin closure (which I have no opinion about). This was moving somebody else's comment to the discussion it was not written for, pretending that the comment was in fact for the discussion and not for the closing. Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So should I have just deleted the comment entirely? Can you link to the policy that stipulates that and justifies your threats of administrator action without warning? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know what to do you should ASK first, this is what the talk pages are about In this case, crossing out would be probably sufficient. Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer either questions in my last two replies. I will number and repeat the questions here for the sake of brevity.

1: Can you quote from the policy which states that undoing a hasty non-admin closure is "inappropriate"?

2: Does this policy stipulate if/how an editor should delete or move another editor's attempted close? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you do not seem to be listening to me and instead you are talking to yourself. Have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to quote the relevant policy and instead prefer your own "explanation". I have no choice but to file a complaint about your conduct. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a choice - to listen to what I was telling you, or to read the policies. You prefer to complain instead. It is your choice, for which you will bear your responsibility. Good luck. Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend arbitration though, zero chances to succeed and will take a lot of time. Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question. Did I say something somewhere you didn't like that prompted your threat of administrator action without a warning? I will file an arbitration complaint because I found both your and Bbb23's conduct in the topic area to be detrimental to editor cooperation and I will seek measures to prevent unwarranted administrator intervention in content disputes. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you what and where you file, I just explained to you what is going to happen. I am not sure why you are repeating "threat without a warning" even though I explained to you already that what you call "threat" was in fact a warning. Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that prior to filing an arbitration complaint, I requested here an apology and clarification on which policy justified your threat as per my action. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I provided sufficient explanations, but you are not interested in listening. Well, if you want to learn in a hard way what the arbitration actually is you are welcome to go forward. Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to link to the policy you say made my revert inappropriate. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit account is currently under discussion on Noticeboard here: [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't read any of the above except for clicking the first diff, so this note is limited to that only. But a note for future reference: whenever you undo an archive and move the closing summary to the bottom as normal comment, which you generally shouldn't do, you need to ensure that it is made clear that it was you who did that. Like so: <other user's comment> → Archive undone and closing summary moved. [your sig] Thanks. El_C 00:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have breached 3RR in this quest to add a cn tag to a statement that has thousand of sources. Please self-revert. CMD (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of edit warring. It is just a Citation Needed tag. The burden is on the claimant. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:IntrepidContributor reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: ). Thank you. CMD (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OPEC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kirby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Levin-Utkin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Modussiccandi (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]