x55x'XXxx

From the very early days of my short editing, I cannot stop wondering why is it so a hostile editing in wikipedia? I don't seem to touch hot political or racial affairs where people get easily excited. Why so much threat-mongering? What's with you people? My talk page looks now as if I am some tough vandal... Give me some slack, guys!!!! Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dzied Bulbash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Biophys (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Means "Gramps Potato-Eater" "Bulbash". is a derogatory term for Belarusians used by Moskali. [1][2] [3][4][5][6]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Extrajudicial punishment has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. IceUnshattered (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger-happy, aren't we? :-) Anyway, no offense taken. I understand you. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A· tag has been placed on Maxim Turbulenc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leonard^(Bloom) 05:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I fail to see how this band passes WP:MUSIC. The article gives no notification of notability, nor does it look like the band passes any of the 12 contentions that WP:MUSIC outlines. Also, your comment of a band that releases 11 CDs is notable is not true, no where in WP:MUSIC does it say that X+ albums is notable. If you think this is unfair, I should direct you to WP:AFD; articles with claims of deletability are brought here and sorted out. Much appreciated, Leonard^(Bloom) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies in this situation. Leonard^(Bloom) 05:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, and I checked to determine whether the band was notable was under that condition, and I found no evidence to support that either of the labels were notable. Both labels return nothing to show notability, nor do either of them have an article on Wikipedia. Leonard^(Bloom) 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the mistake I made: I searched the labels with "s.r.o." at the end. Sorry, I did not know what EMI was, and I'm sorry for that mistake. (I'm leaving now, but I'll respond eventually). Leonard^(Bloom) 06:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I dislike saying this your tone was a bit harsh and unneeded, but your apology is gratefully accepted, and I'm glad you're excited about Wikipedia. Again, sorry for the mistakes I made with the label notability. Would you try and find some more references for the article? It needs secondary sources. See this and this for more info. (If you can't find them in English, as I noticed you have an entry from a Czech Encyclopedia, could you find a way to translate it?) Leonard^(Bloom) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does your username meet the standards? If not, you should consider changing; you say yourself that a portion of the name is derogatory towards Belarusians, and personal attacks are not allowed as usernames. Leonard^(Bloom) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the words "brother" or "comrade" may be used as derogatory in certain contexts. If someone thinks that the fact I am eating potatoes is funny and thinks that I have to be insulted by this, it it their stupidity, not racial problem. [7] Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what about this? You clearly say it is derogatory? Leonard^(Bloom) 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop mass deletions of images from wikipedia articles? Most of these images are exactly on the subject of an articles. For example, image of POWs belongs to an article about POWs. If you have any problems with that, please post your objections at article talk page and wait for reply. If others support you, then the images can be removed. Please read WP:Consensus. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is disagreed. I gave reasons for every my edit. Wikipedia is for facts. BTW why don't you do what you teach: post your reasons in the talk page and wait for consensus? Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I am not deleting all paintings [8] getman wa in gulag and with some leeway his painting may be in articles related to gulag and soviet union, as a historical evidence. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telling "your opinion is disagreed" is not enough. No, you did not provide any justification of your edits at the article's talk pages. When you do, please wait for opinions of other users to build consensus rather than to make unilateral changes. This is the essence of WP:Consensus. Every time when my cahnges of an existing article cause objections, I discuss the changes. But it is you who makes changes (deletions of images), which caused my objections. So, I am waiting for your justification, at the talk pages of corresponding articles, not here.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide any justification of your reverts of my edits at the article's talk pages. You appear to have incorrect understanding how edit works. I made my explanation in edit summary clearly. You reverted without grounded objections. Since you disagree with my edits explained in summary, it is your task to explain, not mine. The work will stop if each and every edit must start from talk page. No. It starts from edit summary. If disagreed, then talk, not before. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are insufficient. You must provide your explanation at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be involved in edit warring. Please be informed about WP:3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to be involved in edit warring. Please re-red WP:3RR rule yrselves. You appear to be twisting my arms. without reasonable proof of your opinion. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This your edit is a copyright violation. The source of the image (Jamestown foundation) must be explicitly indicated according to the copyright conditions for this image.Biophys (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning[edit]

The permission to use image was given by the Jamestown Foundation under condition that we make a reference to them. Please do not do this again, or you will be blocked to prevent the copyright violations.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What false? This is 3.0 license. Proper attribution required.Biophys (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC) "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s). " Author was dead, and the permission was granted by the Foundation. If you are interested in, you could dig out the E-mail correspondence about the images. But I inform you that citation of the Foundation was required.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say "false" and expect to be taken seriously. You need to provide supporting arguments and in this case verifiable and reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say Biophys claim is false because he cannon even comprehend their own text. He quotes: "as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)" The caption was attributed to the author. Doesn't matter he dead. He is still author. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I warned you. Now any future copyright problems are your responsibility.Biophys (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that deletion of sourced wikipedia content without providing any explanation constitute vandalism. Please stop or you will be reported. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop you;re disrupted edits on Wikipedia, if you want to test your edits first please use the sandbox!--Spittlespat (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please abandon this threatening tone. I am editing wikipedia in good faith. If you have specific grudges, please state them here, otherwise please don't litter my talk page. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary makes me to rethink my position with respect to the images in question. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Each of these Getman pictures has a detailed description (from the Wikimedia Commons). Just click at the image and read the descriptin, please. For example, picture "Komariki" (from torture murder) explains exactly what it shows. Perhaps this can resolve your concerns.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bartleby (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite curious why I don't see you bothering user:Biophys with similar tags, and it is actually he who started reverting my edits and he is much more experienced editor, so must be kept to higher standards. Not to say that we have already resolved the conflict, if you took trouble to read this talk page, right above your nuisance threat. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the very early days of my short editing, I cannot stop wondering why is it so a hostile editing in wikipedia? I don't seem to touch hot political or racial affairs where people get easily excited. Why so much threat-mongering? What's with you people? My talk page looks now as if I am some tough vandal... Give me some slack, guys!!!! Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to warn Biophys as well, but when I checked the dates his fourth revert wasn't within 24 hours of the first. Maybe a little officious, but there it is. I'm glad you resolved your conflict and I did see that, but it doesn't change the editing pattern. Also, this isn't a threat or a hostile post. If anything, it's a reminder of policies. If I had been hostile I would have just reported you. But blocking doesn't teach anything. Anyway. Bartleby (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have little understanding of what you were doing and what I wrote. If you think that you acted in a friendly, neutral, or cooperative manner, then in the future, please don't write to me, just go ahead and shoot block or whatever. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so paranoid. Bartleby (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so smart-ass. Just look at my talkapage. Very nice welcome I have got. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzied Bulbash, I strongly suggest that yous read WP:STALK policy and stop following my edits - the images and the articles. You tell you want to make constructive contributions here. Great. Then just do anything else. There is a lot of other articles in WP.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you to read WP:OWN and be cooperative. I edit only 3-4 articles with you, with the exception of articles with images, where I eventually agreed with your position. I would alos repeat the advice given to me right above "don't be paranoid". Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have reverted my previous edits in ~10 articles. I do not want to complain yet to WP:ANI although I could. Please read core WP policies that I posted above to your page. Violation of these policies, such as WP:NPOV) will not be tolerated. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to waste my time struggling with paranoic article owners who even don't know how to count. I will no longer edit the articles in question by myself, unless anyone asks for my opinion. Good luck in propagating your Georgian hatred to Russia in wikipedia. I am not a Russian, I don't really care. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Dzieh Bulbash! I greatly appreciate that. I have to apologize for my harsh comments above. That was "jumping the gun". But unfortunately, I am Russian by my culture and language, and I have nothing to do with Georgia, except making a number of mountaineering trips in Georgia long time ago. I do not even know Georgian language beyond a couple of words, like "Hello" and "friend". Moreover, I am not "anti-Russian". To the contrary. But I believe that "patriotism is the amount of shame felt for crimes committed in the name of someone's nation", as said Adam Michnik. And yes, I believe that Russian-Georgian war of 2008 is one of the crimes committed in the name of the nation. Hence the shame. I hope that may explain my behavior. Regards, Biophys (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do not own any articles however, and I do not hate anyone.Biophys (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to do the honours of starting those articles? Maybe also History of Christianity in Belarus, we've just done the History of Christianity in Ukraine article to a great level. Lots of overlap information there. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with external link in this article ? Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary in some parts is more qualitative source than Britanica --193.200.95.45 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Programmers' Day at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Washington Obkom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Obkom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your edits on that article? You cited WP:CRYSTAL, but for all intents and purposes that guideline is not relevant in regards to deleting what you did, unless you were under the impression that the game wasn't released yet, which it has. Eik Corell (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timurite for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. --Sander Säde 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability not established

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. poisonborz (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trebunie-Tutki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A7 -- This article about a band does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable project. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Crusio (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning 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/Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Levine (medical administrator) 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/David Levine (medical administrator) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Belarus/to do has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 08:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]