User talk:AndreyVorobyov

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, AndreyVorobyov! Thank you for your contributions. I am I dream of horses and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 02:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at PayPal 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 BRD 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. Calton | Talk 07:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calton, you did the same thing, reverted my edits few times. Could you explain, please, why? Why do you think that PayPal official community web-site is not reliable information?

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand Wikipedia policy regarding edit-warring, reliable sources, and due weight -- not to mention your inability to count, write English prose, or understand the templates you copy-and-paste -- is not my concern. Your use of the article talk page to get agreement for your addition, however, is YOUR concern. The editor on the verge of being blocked right now isn't me, it's you. --Calton | Talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calton, you write abusive phrases, but you don't reply to the main question: "Why do you think that official PayPal web-site is not reliable source?"

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free clue: I don’t work for you. Revert your change — yeah, don’t pretend it wasn’t you — within the next 30 minutes and TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE, or I *will* report you the edit warring noticeboard and see that you’re blocked. You have 30 minutes because that’s how long it will take for me to get home to my computer to type up the report. --Calton | Talk 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calton,

I wrote on your talk page. I don't understand why you are using rude phrases. My initial edit was deleted with no talk. Let's discuss it and PayPal article on your page.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC) The article has a Talk page. Revert and use it. Twenty minutes. The clock is ticking. --Calton | Talk 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, Unfortunately, user who deleted my initial edit didn't creat discussion on article Talk page. You supported his vandalism. I ask you once again to discuss an article on your page. I wrote to you on your talk page long time ago, but I didn't get any reply. If you refuse discussion, I need to report it.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, user who deleted my initial edit didn't creat [sic] discussion on article Talk page.

It's YOUR addition, so it's YOUR responsibility to justify it. Wikipedia does NOT require YOUR approval. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calton I wrote on your user talk page, and suggested to discuss and article, but you never replied. Why? Please visit your talk page to discuss an article.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. Calton | Talk 14:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I've tried to follow Talk_page_guidelines and Wikipedia:Consensus. I wrote message on User:Calton talk page suggesting him to discuss an article. He didn't want to discuss. He started to write on my talk page abusive phrases. I thought, Wikipedia is not about a winning, but a way to find a consensus. I don't understand what I'm blocked for, I want to make productive contributions. User who reported me (User:Calton) did 3 times war edit. And he rejected to discuss an article. I don't want to do like him and I want to make more productive contributions, I think it is not productive to reject article discussion and then report a user who wants to discuss. I e-mailed to Admin who blocked me, but I didn't receive a reply. Wikipedia is a work of users, and blocking is a last thing Admin should do, it is necessary to discuss peacefully. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Per my comments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 15 March 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.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24321 was submitted on Mar 14, 2019 17:58:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... it is necessary to discuss peacefully

You have been given AMPLE opportunities to "discuss peacefully" and YOU HAVE NOT. You have been pointed to the article talk page (Talk:PayPal) where discussion takes place AND HAVE IGNORED IT. You haven't discussed it or tried to reach agreement, you just kept reinserting it.

When you come back from your block, GO TO THE TALK PAGE (Talk:PayPal). It's not other editors who have to convince you, it's YOU who has to convince other editors. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, According Wikipedia policy, users can discuss issues both on page talk and users talk page.

You have ignored my suggestions to discuss an Article on your talk page. You've never replied. Why? I wrote to you suggestion to discuss an article, but you continued writing that I should be blocked. You wrote many rude phrases on my tak page. Why did you ignore my messages to discuss an Article? Go to you talk page, and find it. It's there waiting for reply. I saw on your talk page, that you want to be an admin in Wikipedia. If you want to be an Admin, you should work here peacefully and respectfully to other users. Please write carefully what other editors write on your talk page. You even don't reply to people. You will never get an admin rights here on Wikimedia, if you will not change the way of creating content here. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AndreyVorobyov, If *you* make changes and they are contested and reverted, then *you* must seek consensus through discussion on the article talk page before you re-do the changes - and not edit war over them. The onus is on *you* to start the discussion and gain consensus, not on editors reverting your changes. I don't see any discussion started by you at any article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that you were edit warring against multiple other editors, so it's no good trying to pin this on Calton. You were also continuing your edit war logged out, which is deceptive. You are very lucky you were only blocked for 24 hours - and if your approach to disagreement does not fundamentally change when this block expires, you can expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for advices! I understand and learn. Please specify, I can't open a discussion on opponent user's talk page? I mostly edit in Russian Wikipedia, and there is a rule that editor to find a consensus should write on a page talk or opponent user talk page. I didn't know, in English Wikipedia is different rule, sorry. Other user reverted it asking to add sourse. I added sourse, because yes, he was right, Article should be sourced. And saved the Article again. When user Calton reverted my changes with already addited source, I wanted to discuss it on his page, and I wrote on his page asking to reach consensus. He never replied. You can see this message on his talk page. Next time I can't suggest discussion on users talk pages in English Wikipedia?

I want you to know, that I was not continuing edit or war after logged out. There are some sanctions now from organization mentioned in Article against Moscow's sitizens, many people discuss it in a blog. Maybe these editors came from there, I don't know. But I sware, it was not me.

I don't think there's any great difference between English and Russian Wikipedias, in that you are welcome to discus things on user talk pages too. But that can only really work if there are only two people involved, and if it does not work then that does not give you permission to carry on regardless - if your changes are contested, you *must* gain a consensus. Anyway, the history is clear...

You made your addition here.
It was reverted by User:Jpgordon here as unsourced.
You re-reverted here without adding a source. Saying "There will be press-releases" is not sufficient.
Your addition was reverted by User:Calton here as it was still unsoured. (That's two people you are edit warring against at this stage).
You added it again here, this time with a source.
That was reverted by User:Jpgordon here, who contested the reliability of the source - Wikipedia additions must not only be sourced, they must be sourced to Reliable Sources, and community chat boards (even if "official" in some way) are generally not considered reliable sources.
You added it again here and were again reverted here.
You appeared to continue the edit war logged out here and here - you can claim that was not you, but it's the same content and the same argument.

The undeniable conclusion is that you were edit warring against two other editors to insert unsourced and then inadequately sourced material. And at no point did *you* stop and try to gain a consensus at Talk:PayPal, even though you were correctly told by Calton on this talk page that that is what you needed to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Thank you! If 2 opponents - then we should discuss only on page talk, not users page talk. Now is clear. I thought that I can choose, that was the main mistake. Because of this I wrote on User:Calton page suggestion to discuss an Article. Now I see, that if 2 opponents - there is no choice, and i can't discuss on their pages. Please help User:Calton to became an administrator! He deserve it. No matter that he speaks rude with people, and don't reply. He did "correct" report.

I only insist in 1 thing, I didn't continue the edit war logged out. Although it was the same content or whatever. I didn't do it. You can check it. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is that, whether it is one person or more, you must gain a consensus and not just keep repeating your reverted edits. And the article talk page is almost always the best place for that, even if you are only disagreeing with one person, as it attracts other people too. As for the logged-out edits, it's certainly possible that someone else got involved and made them, so I'll accept your word for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee Please find evidences that I've tried to find a consensus. My mistake was that I did it on User:Calton talk page.

My last edit at Article page was at 07:45, 14 March 2019 [1].
At 07:46, 14 March 2019‎ Calton revetred it [2].
I was no longer reverted something in the Article or edit since this time.
At 12:55, 14 March 2019 I wrote suggestion to discuss an article at User:Calton tak page.
Without any reply on his page and without any intention to discuss an Article, at 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC) user Calton reported me [3]

OK, maybe I did incorrect that wrote on opponent user's talk page. Buy I've thought that main thing is to discuss an Article, no matter is it on main Article page or opponent editor talk page. Should I do the same in a future with other editors? Just report them ignoring discussions on my talk page, if there are 2 editors? Should I insist they discuss only on Article page? As for now, I would reply and I would discuss on my talk page. Please tell me, if I'm wrong. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 ours left...and I still blocked... Blocking added at 15:34, 14 March 2019. Now is 18:34, 14 March 2019.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly failing to get the key point over to you, and I can't understand why. All I can suggest (and all I really have the time and patience for) is to tell you to read Wikipedia's policies on Edit warring, Consensus and Dispute Resolution. If you can not understand those, there is nothing more I can do. As for your block, it still has some minutes to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee It shows that I was blocked at 15:34, 14 March 2019. Now is 18:49 in Moscow. What time zone I see on blocking information?
The logged block time is UTC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee Should I do something? I mean, should I send a request to unblock, because time expired? I've checked, it's 16:03 UTC time now.
No, the block has now expired and you are free to edit again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I will read once again, thank you! I though that report and blocking is hard thing, and it is needed if any discussions are ignored. I suggested by myself to discuss an Article, user ignored, reported me, and I've got a ban. Doesn't matter, it's OK. Maybe I suggested to discuss not to correct editor. 2 times revert and 1 time source edit as requested by other user = ban. Bravo! I would prefer peaceful discussions. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on[edit]

No-one wants you to depart from en:WP. The "moving on" comment is merely a suggestion that you put the memory of this unfortunate encounter behind you, and continue to edit here. Brown-Haired Girl put it better than anyone.

Good luck for the future, either here or on other WP projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey, you have misunderstood my comment. I absolutely did not mean "move on from English Wikipedia, if you insist". As Andy understands, I simply mean move on from this incident - and, please, help us develop our encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]