User talk:Dart molt1

Welcome!

Hi, Dart molt1. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khamzat Chimaev. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. TylerBurden (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden stop editing the article, and support the regime of terrorism in Chechnya in those years. It was not a state, if people are now born in the DPR, will we write DPR-born or Ukrainian-born? Dart molt1 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a personal attack as well, claiming that I am a terrorist supporter for reverting you. Carry this on and I'll have no issues with reporting you. You are meant to discuss on the talk page instead of edit warring under a false edit summary of ″fixed typ″. I initially thought you removed Chechnya entirely, which is why I reverted, that's my mistake and I apologize. You are not handling that situation well at all though. TylerBurden (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't use deceptive edit summaries like this, writing "Fixed typo" when you are actually removing an entire sourced paragraph. Mellk (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden when you write Chechen-born, you also support the independence of the DPR and the LPR. Chechnya is part of Russia, therefore, it is correct to write Russian-born, while adding of Chechen ethnicity Dart molt1 (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that the edit summary is deceptive. You changed meaning, not a misspelling. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on I agree with this, but the article is still framed incorrectly. At the beginning, the person's country of origin is written, not his nationality. Nationality is already written in the biography. In this case, you need to write that Aljamein Sterling is Jamaican-born, Stipe Miocic is Croatian-born, Zlatan Ibrahimovic is Bosnian-born, etc. Therefore, the article should be properly designed exactly as I wrote above. Dart molt1 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would actually read my reply, you might understand what I was doing and stop throwing around false accusations. Stop writing nonsense edit summaries. TylerBurden (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden perhaps you are right that this article is not so important to be of high quality. Dart molt1 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even making sense at this point, either way the article has been protected due to your edit warring with the Chechen editor. Problem solved. TylerBurden (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden I don't understand why the Chechen editor is better than the American one, but it's better to study the sources, and not spoil the article like that. The problem is solved or not, but it is written illiterate Dart molt1 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, no consensus was established to change it from Russian born to Chechen born. I will change it back to Russian born. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dart molt1, I had not looked into the content dispute. I was just commenting on the edit summary.

The place of birth doesn't belong in the lede at all per MOS:ETHNICITY. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: I don't mind the article in the current state, he was living in Sweden by the time he became highly notable so I think that MOS applies. Good catch. TylerBurden (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on thank u🤝 Dart molt1 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dart molt, do you happen to use any other accounts or IP adresses to edit Wikipedia? Your false edit summaries and pro-Russian edits are very similar to other activity seen recently by since blocked IP's. TylerBurden (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden i just use VPN sometimes Dart molt1 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are continuing to use deceptive edit summaries. I undid your edit on Kazimir Malevich where you said "corrected the information in accordance with the specified official sources" because the cited sources actually do not support your changes (WP:V), yet you restored your changes without addressing this, simply saying "removed inaccuracies in the article". Then, when someone else made changes to this, you restored it again and used a deceptive edit summary again by saying "Fixed grammar" when you changed the nationality again. I am not sure what else to say apart from these edits are disruptive (you are edit warring over this, see WP:3RR) and as you continue with the deceptive edit summaries despite being told about this by multiple editors, it looks like it could lead to a block. Mellk (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this. You were very clearly warned about such deceptive edit summaries. Mellk (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk the links attached in the article (not by me, but by other people for a long time) contain information from international sources that shows that Malevich is a Russian artist, but someone still edits the article under Ukrainian. I was already tired of writing clarifications and therefore just removed the errors under fixed grammar. Dart molt1 (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk you also incorrectly corrected that he is a representative of the Ukrainian avant - garde , although the sources clearly indicate that he is a representative of the Russian avant - garde. You also incorrectly stated that he worked in Ukraine - a country that did not exist at that time. And also, under the phrase Ukrainian-born artist, you indicated people who are not connected with Ukraine, such as Tatlin. Dart molt1 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that the continuous unsourced changes by IPs can be annoying (I deal with these all the time), but it is still important to use the edit summary properly and not be misleading with it. You can just state "unsourced changes" in edit summary, even blank is infinitely better than incorrectly calling it a grammar/typo fix. In regards to Kazimir Malevich article, I just restored a stable version, I didn't write this. For Ukrainian avant-garde, there is this as a cited source (the other cite has a dead link) so I reverted your edit. If you want make such changes, I suggest to find good sources and cite those while making those changes per WP:V. Also see WP:CITING. Any questions let me know. Mellk (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Steven Seagal. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Wartenberg what is the reason for the block where I was wrong and where my edits did not correspond to the specified links? Dart molt1 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for tendentious editing. You are welcome to appeal this block using the instructions in the block notice above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why are you ignoring? You blocked me for no good reason, without really explaining the reasons for the ban. Why does Wikipedia have a discussion section if we can't discuss my edits? Why does Wikipedia require the confirmation of information with links if there is information in the text that does not correspond to them anyway? These links were not added by me, but long before me, but you left only the antics of some person and confirmed the article in this form. Also, the arguments for refusing to unblock me for children are nit-picking words. Is this a desire to improve Wikipedia? Dart molt1 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignoring you. Your unblock requests were reviewed by administrators other than me in the interest of fairness, which is how all unblock requests are reviewed. If you can convince another administrator that you should be unblocked, through making an unblock request, they will likely also consult with me before unblocking you. Unfortunately, your statement that you were blocked for "no good reason" suggests that your editing is unlikely to change if you are unblocked right now. The message that PhilKnight left you when your most recent request was declined explains what is needed for a successful unblock request. In my opinion, it would also be helpful if you could commit to editing in an area other than people related to Eastern Europe for a period of time. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the example of Kazemir Malevich - the links indicate that he is a Russian artist, but you still left the wrong option, that he is Polish-Ukrainian. It would be correct to write a Russian artist of Polish origin. And such things need to be brought up for discussion, and not immediately banned. Plus how can I edit other realms if I'm banned? The reason "not to improve Wikipedia" is, in my opinion, unfair. After all, I edited articles in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Dart molt1 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking

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).

Dart molt1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that I was banned unfairly. I edited the articles in accordance with the indicated sources, did not distort the information in any way. For example, according to international sources, Malevich is a Russian artist, a representative of Russian avant-garde. Steven Seagal is a member of the "A Just Russia — For Truth" party, which makes him a Russian politician. The same situation with all other edits. For each edit, I indicated its reason. There was no vandalism, I did not make George Washington the German president and so on, but only corrected the articles in accordance with reality. So I demand to remove the ban from me and leave my edits as they are, otherwise our beloved Wikipedia will be a carrier of low-quality information. Regards Dart molt1Dart molt1 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edits like Special:Diff/1082389911, where you remove sources with the edit summary of "fixed typo" seem to indicate that you don't care what sources say. It doesn't look like you've ever added a citation, just edit warred to change information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2022 (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.

Unblocking 2

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).

Dart molt1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that my blocking is not justified. I found errors in the articles and corrected them, but sometimes this was done under the pretext of removing a typo, this is a purely technical problem that cannot be the reason for the ban. The articles were changed every time, and I no longer saw the point in re-specifying the reason for the change in the text. With all due respect to Jake Wartenberg, but without looking, he simply deleted all my edits, while leaving false information in the articles. For example, an article about Sultan Ibragimov, there is a note that this is a Russian boxer of Dagestani origin - Dagestan is not a nationality, it is a region of Russia in which more than a hundred different nationalities live, so this is a real mistake. Dagestan is not a country, if you delve into the essence, you will understand that this signature is erroneous. Also, for example, Kazimir Malevich - I made edits in accordance with the links attached to me from international sources, in each it was written that this was a Russian artist of Polish origin. Why then do we need links if the information in the article is not given in accordance with them? Also, for example, Steven Seagal - on May 29 2021 became a member of a Russian political party, which allows us to supplement his article with the fact that he is a Russian politician who owns Russian citizenship. Roy Jones Jr. - owns Russian citizenship and, after acquiring it, went to fights with a double flag of Russia and the USA, which makes him a Russian-American boxer. For example, in his fight with Enzo Maccarinelli, this is evident. George Gershwin - in his biography it is written that he is of Ukrainian-Jewish origin, although there is a link to Russian American Heritage, which indicates the opposite. With the rest of my edits, the situation is the same. I did not allow myself too much, distorting people's biographies with false information, but on the contrary, I found errors and corrected them, and that was the only reason I got banned. I think this is wrong. I respect Jake Wartenberg's years of work, but in my case, he did the wrong thing. To ban me just because I did not always write the reason for the edit, in my opinion, is not deserved. I hope that the administrators of Wikipedia understand, and I hope that they understand that I was motivated only by the desire to improve Wikipedia, and not to vandalize. Regards Dart molt1.Dart molt1 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You admit to using misleading edit summaries, but do not commit to using helpful edit summaries from now on. You do not commit to sourcing your edits from now on. You do not commit to using the talk page to establish consensus. I am declining this request. PhilKnight (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2022 (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.

Dart molt1 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight where did I admit to using misleading editing summaries? Dart molt1 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your unblock request, you admit to using incorrect edit summaries. PhilKnight (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight are you sure you read my request? I wrote that I was correcting incorrect information to the correct one in accordance with the links indicated before me. This means that someone was just engaged in vandalism, changing only part of the information in accordance with the links that were previously. That is, I just rolled back these vandalistic edits to the state they were in earlier. If you are really interested, then by the example of Sultan Ibragimov - how can there be a Dagestani origin? And if, for example, there is an American singer from Florida, will we write an American singer of Florida origin? Don't you find that strange? And Malevich? All the links indicate that he is a Russian artist, but he is being edited as a Ukrainian. In fact , I just rolled back the article to the stable version , removing false information. Dart molt1 (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked my edits for fairness? If you decide to leave the articles in the state they are, then at least remove the links, because they contain information that is opposite to what is at the moment. Dart molt1 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (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).

Dart molt1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been more than two years, during which time I have made a great useful contribution to the Russian Wikipedia, and as an American who also speaks English, I could make a lot of useful contributions to the English wikipedia. I hope that I will be unblocked, in turn, I promise not to wage a war of edits, and to discuss controversial situations in the discussion of articles and improve the English Wikipedia with all my might. I hope for the understanding of the administrators, and I believe that together we can make Wikipedia better. I guarantee on my own that I will not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Dart molt1 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Unblocking 3

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).

Dart molt1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been more than two years, during which time I have made a great useful contribution to the Russian Wikipedia, and as an American who also speaks English, I could make a lot of useful contributions to the English wikipedia. I hope that I will be unblocked, in turn, I promise not to wage a war of edits, and to discuss controversial situations in the discussion of articles and improve the English Wikipedia with all my might. I hope for the understanding of the administrators, and I believe that together we can make Wikipedia better. I guarantee on my own that I will not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Dart molt1 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the problems that lead to your block. Yamla (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remember the reason for my blocking, in fact, in general, such eternal blocking is unfair, all I did was make edits in the context of the links indicated before me in the article. The only thing I did wrong, in fact, was that I could bring the changes up for discussion before that. Dart molt1 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2024 (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.