• Talk archive: 2007–10
• Talk archive: 2010–16
• Bot generated notices: 2010

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

You were warned not to edit war, but you continued to do so. Further edit warring after you are unblocked will lead to longer blocks. This notice must not be removed whilst the block is active. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 revert rule is three reverts in 24 hours, the time zone doesn't matter. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is the first incident that is why blocking should not last more than 24 hours according to WP:EDITWAR. There is no explanation about longer blocking. I am not going to violate this rule next time because current WP system time differs from my local WP time. That confused me. I was not going to violate 3RR because I am not a new editor in WP. I am here for several years and know main rules and policies. Better to unblock me but I realize the fact that accidentally my edit violated 3RR rule. You can see here (Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and nonneutral caption of Satellite image of Russian MoD) that I am looking for consensus with other authors. The fact of a week blocking prevents me from discussion on the article talk page and from trying of working out a consensus.

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. Mjroots (talk)

---

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.

You were not only edit warring, but also pushing a biased point of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. Mjroots (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

You did not say about WP:NPOV first time upon blocking me and you did not do any warnings about possible violation of WP:NPOV to me. And even now you did not provide any diffs to support your accusation. That means that this is unfounded accusation. According to WP:3RR I should not be blocked more than for 24 hours and you did not provide any proper reason for a longer blocking considering that I have never been blocked in all Wikimedia projects for 10 years of my editing experience with more than 50k constructive edits so far. My first unblock request is here [1]. Saying about time zone I mean that this WP interface time is 8:30 a.m. and my local ru-WP interface time is 11:30 a.m. Every revert was commented by the way but not just pushing the button.

Decline reason:

It is not possible to "accidentally" violate the WP:3RR. You are talking about time zones, which looks like you were trying to WP:game the system. According to WP:EW, Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2016 (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.

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)Template:Z48[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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, 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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [2]. And it is obvious that after effective complaint against your actions [3] 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]

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]

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]

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 [4]. Feel offended that you failed to push misinformation into the Russian Wikipedia about the bridge [5]? :)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [6] 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 :)

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]

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.

Template:Z33 Stickee (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]