User talk:Roma-borisov

Hi!!!!!

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi Roma-borisov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|y[[File:Flag of Jabhat al-Nusra.jpg|40px]] [[File:Syria-flag 1932-58 1961-63.svg|40px]
|r[[File:Syria-flag 1932-58 1961-63.svg|40px]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected.Roma-borisov (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel groups[edit]

Nice graphic. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Roma-borisov (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo fighting[edit]

Please put all the new info you have on the fighting within the city into the article Battle of Aleppo (2012–13). The offensive article talks about the offensive south and east of the city, not the fighting within the city. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Roma-borisov (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

In what the reason for my blocking? Roma-borisov (talk) 6:46 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

You are blocked because a checkuser investigation shows that you were abusively operating multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:08, 21 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think, that there was a mistake and I was blocked wrongly and consequently I ask to unblock me in fact did not break rules at editing and did not create other registration records. And suddenly me have blocked and have declared that I sock. And I at all do not know that this such. Who can that earlier used mine IP in fact I has received it only five days ago.I believe that you should understand better a situation. Roma-borisov (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think that based on what I can understand of this request and the nature of the block, I don't think your English is up to the task. Perhaps you should stay on the Wikipedia in your native language until it is. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not asking to unblock my account right now, but you could undo the indefinite block by replacing its blocking for a month or two. And the fact that I'm not really good at English, not a reason to deny me in my request for the lifting of the indefinite block. Not all the English-language version of Wikipedia is proficient in English. I speak English well enough to read and analyze information from English-language sources, and then use it for editing.Roma-borisov (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Quite apart from the persistent lying about the blatantly obvious sockpuppetry, in your editing history I see numerous copyright infringements. I also see other problems, such as addition of questionable content with inadequate sourcing and false accusation of vandalism, but the copyright infringements are the most important issue. Furthermore, since your original account was repeatedly blocked for copyright infringements, and since, even after having numerous accounts blocked since then, you are continuing with the same problem, I see no reason whatever to think that you are likely to suddenly reform because this sockpuppet is unblocked. Moreover, your endless disingenuous unblock requests, which stand no chance of success, are a waste of time for administrators who could be doing more constructive work, so your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2013 (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.