Hello, Wlbw68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome!

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Filioque may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Filioque 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello your input would be greatly appreciated on the Talk:Filioque. Thank You in advance. LoveMonkey 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You will need to contact User:Evenssteven and User:Dr.K.. LoveMonkey 23:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствую! У нас с вами внезапно наметилось какое-то противостояние в статье: [1]. Считаю, что известность персоне принесли всё-таки не его взгляды (шовинистов и черносотенцев тогда было богато), а приписываемые ему "чудеса" и перераспределение пожертвований. Думаю, это необходимо отразить в преамбуле.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Здравствуйте уважаемый Nicoljaus. Пусть будут "чудеса", но в подтверждении этих "чудес" нужны независимые вторичные источники, ссылки на них. В тех ссылках, что выложены в настоящее время в статье и прикреплены к конкретной фразе о чудесах нет ни слова. Здесь вопрос ещё о том, что понимать под "чудесами". В Евангелии к чудесам можно отнести: хождение по водам, насыщение пятью хлебами несколько тысяч людей, воскрешения Лазаря, исцеление слепорожденного. Насколько мне известно, о чём я по крайне мере прочитал: ничего подобного Сергиев не совершал. У Большакова в книге к чудесам причислены различные случаи исцелений, по принципу, ушиб руку или порезал ногу; обратился к Иоанну и спустя какое-то время получил выздоровление. Если исходить из принципа исцеление=чудо, то чудотворцем надо считать и Распутина. Но по моему всё-таки чудо и исцеление это разные вещи. Большаков откровенный истеричный иоаннит и воспринимать его книгу как независимый вторичный источник абсурдно. По этой причине об исцелениях, а не о чудесах надо говорить с оговорками, слово это надо брать в кавычки и называть тех, кто писал об этих "чудесах". Если вы читали Лескова, Толстого, Протопопова (а смысла этим людям-современникам Сергиева писать неправду против Иоанна не было никакого), то они вообще отрицали наличие каких-либо чудес, и более того, высмеивали Иоанна как мнимого чудотворца. Все рассказы о чудесах связаны с больными на всю голову сектантами иоаннитами-хлыстами. По теме, что я прочитал уже после бессрочной блокировки у Дунаева: Кое-что из дневников о. Иоанна Кронштадтского: о посте, Кое-что из дневников о. Иоанна Кронштадтского: о курении, Кое-что из дневников о. Иоанна Кронштадтского: о жене и у Дунаева, со ссылкой на Валентина Соломаху. Оказывается, не я один обратил внимание на то, что не всё так "гладко". Повторю, что писать одну "чернуху" против Сергиева я не собирался, всегда был готов изложить любые факты, но нейтрально и научно. То что сейчас творится в русской Википедии, когда за изложение исторических фактов, не вписывающихся в красивую глянцевую агиографию РПЦ, выписывают бессрочную блокировку или говорят: "пошёл вон отсюда, ноги чтоб твоей здесь больше не было" это настоящее безобразие. Или возьмите статью в русской Википедии "Правила святых апостолов", в преамбуле было "— сборник церковных канонов (правил), якобы написанных апостолами... Хотя авторство правил не принадлежит апостолам, Православная церковь признаёт за ними апостольский авторитет до настоящего времени" была ссылка на The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium : in 3 vol. / ed. by Dr. Alexander Kazhdan. — N. Y. ; Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1991. — 2232 p. — ISBN 0-19-504652-8. — T. 1, P. 141, этот текст преамбулы обсудили и согласовали; The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium это авторитетное научное издание, такой же авторитет в научном мире и редактор Каждан. Меня бессрочно блокируют, эту ссылку сносят и вместо неё в преамбуле записывают: ″— сборник церковных канонов (правил)... Хотя авторство правил в письменном виде не принадлежит апостолам, Православная церковь признаёт за ними апостольский авторитет до настоящего времени″ Господство и торжество мракобесия в русской Википедии: уничтожают ссылку на авторитетное научное издание The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium переписывать преамбулу и вымарывают из него ″якобы написанных апостолами (allegedly written by the Apostles)″, зато вписывать небылицу про ″письменный вид″ ; да апостолы не создавали и не давали эти правила вообще ни в каком виде: ни в письменном, ни в устном. Ну что вы хотите если наличие антисемитских, черносотенных, антикоммунистических, монархических взглядов при наличии АИ вообще отрицается нынешним администратором русской Википедии. А статьи про Николая II на радость царебожникам-монархистам и вовсе заморозили — наложили запрет на правку этих статей. Это касается всех статей, связанных с пропагандой РПЦ: любые исторические факты, нарушающие официальный гламур РПЦ, или удаляют, или стараются исказить; редакторов, которые вносят эти исторические факты, блокируют; статьи решением администраторов ставят на защиту, чтобы их никто не смел редактировать, кроме проверенных, "идеологически грамотных″ товарищей. Это что свободная энциклопедия? — Это возврат советской цензуры. Wlbw68 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Давайте пока по обсуждаемой статье. Энциклопедия здесь светская и обсуждать реальность "чудес" можно только в одном смысле - был ли персонаж ими известен. Разумеется, Иоанн (Сергиев) был знаменит своими "чудесами", вплоть до воскрешения мертвых. Так же он был известен, что работал этаким "благотоворительным фондом", распределяя пожертвования. Люди тысячами стекались в Кронштадт чтобы получить "чудо" или материальную помощь, сохранинились тысячи писем с просьбами. Это всё факты и их необходимо упомянуть. То, что взгляды батюшки при этом были, мягко говоря, не прогрессивные, тоже факт, и он был упомянут наравне с первыми. Если мы пишем только про второе, то остаётся не освещённым вопрос, откуда вообще такой интерес к персоне, потому что, повторюсь шовинистов и черносотенцев тогда было богато.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nicoljaus. Тогда слово чудеса пусть стоят в кавычках. А что касается "благотворительности", то хотелось бы, чтобы этот факт был изложен несколько иначе. Например, Иоанн собирал пожертвования и раздавал деньги просителям. Мне вообще непонятно — почему вдруг он решил, что может распоряжаться деньгами как хочет; пожертвования были не ему лично, а на церковь. Что касается Черной сотни, то Иоанн занимал в ней весьма высокое положение, как вдохновитель и организатор всей этой антисемитской монархической банды.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Если поставить "чудеса" в кавычки, то получается, что кто-то вершит "чудеса" и без кавычек и мы вроде как берёмся указывать на истинных чудотворцев. Впрочем, ладно, это вопрос тонкий, но не принципиальный. По поводу "благотворительности": а это так и делается обычно - фонд выбивает деньги из пожертвователей и как-то распределяет. Можно отдельной подглавкой описать.
        • Вся штука в том, что никакого фонда вообще не было. Пожертвования на храм, крупные суммы, которые попадали в руки Иоанна, он забирал себе и распоряжался деньгами единолично, как своими собственными деньгами. Понимаю, что это не совсем в пользу паточной агиографии, но что было, то было.Wlbw68 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Это всё надо в основном тексте написать, если есть источники. Как бы то ни было, известен-то он был именно как "благодетель", который раздавал нищим по три копейки, а влиятельным людям мог и сотни рублей отправить. Как он этой славой распорядился и к чему это привело - другой вопрос.
            • Ув. Nicoljaus. Возможно этот факт имел место, но упор при канонизации в 1990 году (я это хорошо помню) был сделан не на это, а совсем на другое, а именно: Иоанн был старец всея Руси, выше Оптинских (к которому стремились все люди), великий молитвенник за Россию, обладатель необыкновенных духовных даров (по этой причине, как объясняли, он устроил общие исповеди), девственник, постник, прозорливый, пророк (который предсказал великие беды для России в случае революции), подвижник (он всё время молился, совершал богослужения в церкви и всё время выполнял требы, с которыми ему обращались). В 1990 году в СССР только начали издавать христианскую литературу, объективной картины положения дел в Кронштадте до революции не было. Разумеется, о Чёрной сотне, об откровенном антисемитизме, иоаннитах, о его позорном бегстве из Кронштадта, о его модернизме, практически хлыстовстве, о критике Иоанна не писали. Даже массовые истерики во время его общей "исповеди" преподносили как проявление в Иоанне благодатных божественных даров. Сейчас, есть литература, появилась настоящая картина жизни Иоанна, возникли вопросы даже у православных. Но как вы видите, объективные факты из его жизни, не вписывающиеся в агиографию, изложить не дают в "свободной" светской энциклопедии — в русской Википедии: их или искажают в пользу агиографии до неузнаваемости, или вообще запрещают упоминать в статье о них, всех кто их пытается внести в статью будут жестоко блокировать (один в один как на "православных" форумах РПЦ, на которых правилами запрещена "хула" на святых). Это и понятно, Иоанн (Сергиев) наряду с Николаем Романовым стали одними из главных форпостов не для проповеди христианства, а для пропаганды РПЦ в России; построено множество храмов, освященных во имя Иоанна; написано множество икон с его изображением; составлены церковные службы, посвященные Иоанну; составлены молитвы с обращением к Иоанну; его сочинения изданы многотысячными тиражами; ему поставлены уже три памятника: в Кронштадте, в Иркутске, в Москве, открыта музей-квартира (если у вас есть желание, то после блокировки напишите в русской Википедии о памятниках и квартире; у меня такой возможности больше нет и не будет). Негативные факты из жизни Сергиева, как из жизни Романова, как считают идеологи в РПЦ (тождественно КГБ — ФСБ), могут подорвать авторитет РПЦ. Только для настоящего историка объективная наука дороже, чем казённая идеология.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Ещё есть Народный мост Иоанна Кронштадтского и насколько распространен культ Иоанна Кронштадтского Wlbw68 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ****И вот еще вопрос. В конце статьи было упоминание, что "Many churches around the world and the Ioannovsky Convent (the second largest monastic community in St Petersburg where his relics lie) are dedicated to St. John of Kronstadt." Что значит "dedicated to"? Если говорить про Иоанновский ставропигиальный, то он назван в честь Иоанна Рыльского. Или его уже потом другому "посвятили"? Или у этого "dedicated" есть какой-то другой смысл?--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • "dedicated to" это "посвящён". Не знаю кто это писал, но в этом монастыре нет ни одной церкви, освящённой в честь Иоанна Кронштадтского. Что в нём есть: часовня Покрова Пресвятой Богородицы; двухэтажный храм. Первый этаж — в честь Иоанна Рыльского; второй этаж храм — во имя Двенадцати Апостолов. Писал эту фразу иностранец, который не разбирался во всех тонкостях, ко всему прочему на официальном сайте монастыря на первом месте стоит имя Иоанна Кронштадтского. Думаю, что при посещении этой обители насельники будут говорить только об Иоанне Кронштадтском и этим введут в заблуждение любого гостя. Считаю, что эту фразу надо исправить. — Монастырь тесно связан с именем Иоанна Кронштадтского: он освящён Иоанном, Иоанн при жизни духовно окормлял обитель; после смерти Иоанна в монастыре хранятся его мощи. Wlbw68 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Согласен, сам пришёл к такому же выводу.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Dvorkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, was not right. I corrected the ambiguity. If I am wrong, then please point out my mistakes, will always be grateful.Wlbw68 (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Wlbw68, thanks for creating Mikhail Krivoshlyk!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please ensure the foreign language content is translated as best as possible into English

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. Wlbw68, thanks for creating Vitaliy Shishakov!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works especially the part about Books in languages other than English. Please see Vladimir Nabokov bibliography and rewrite the list in the same fashion

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dom from Paris (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at John of Kronstadt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic John of Kronstadt.

(Note: I did not start this ANI thread. I am notifying you since the person who started it has failed to do so. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Thank you so much for your correction of my English version of your article! I really appreciate it. ORHN (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Yakov Brandt, Wlbw68!

Wikipedia editor K.e.coffman just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for improving coverage of academics on Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on K.e.coffman's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wlbw68. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 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, Wlbw68,

Thanks for creating Konstantin Ivanovich Makarov! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Boleyn)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Nicolas Lokhoff.

User:Onel5969 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Very nice job on this article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Onel5969)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Onel5969. Thanks for the kind words.Wlbw68 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... I meant it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 13 August 2019 (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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Woodroar (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Woodroar. I have not made any changes since April 14, 2018 to the article by Alexander Dvorkin in which you removed an external link. Why I received your notification is incomprehensible to me.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Wlbw68! I alerted everyone participating at the BLPN discussion‎, which I thought was the most fair. And while you haven't edited the article on Alexander Dvorkin lately, you should understand that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including on Talk and Noticeboard pages. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Woodroar. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alexander Dvorkin, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Woodroar, I do not understand you. Why do you think this source is unreliable? Justify please.Wlbw68 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's an advocacy site, and those are nearly always considered unreliable for claims about living persons, especially negative or controversial claims. In fact, I can think of only one advocacy site that is considered reliable for such claims, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and that's only because it's widely cited and praised by high-quality reliable sources. And even then we only use the SPLC in specific, limited ways after many, many, many discussions on Wikipedia. There may be other, similar sites that have slipped my mind, but this certainly isn't one of them. We should not be linking to that site. Woodroar (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woodroar, if possible, please provide facts confirming that this site is an advocacy site. I can’t speak for the whole world. But as for freedom of faith in Russia, the facts on this site are not false. I write this because I live in Russia and I see all this with my own eyes. This is clearly visible even in the Russian Wikipedia, try to state purely scientific facts in it without any malicious intent undesirable to the official policy of the Russian Orthodox Church, your edits will be canceled, if you continue to do this in other articles, you will get an eternal ban. And the admins will not give a damn about your work and your written articles. I have nothing to do with this organization and this site and this site I found today on the Internet for the first time. If you have fake facts posted on this site, then please write about them.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their About page says that they're an advocacy group. I'm guessing one that I would probably agree with, but that still doesn't make it suitable for use on Wikipedia. Ultimately, per WP:BURDEN it is you who needs to prove that this site meets WP:BLP and WP:EL. That should be done on the Talk page, and the external link should be removed until you have consensus. Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, Woodroar, there is a presumption of innocence. The person (site) is not guilty until his guilt is proved. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. You have blamed this site, and you need to prove it.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, read WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") and WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people"). If you want it there, then you need to build consensus to add it. Woodroar (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Woodroar. Why did you decide that this material is contentious? Please justify. What exactly do you dispute? Suppose you find absolutely false information on this site, then everything else on the site is doubtful. But you didn’t. In addition, this is the opinion of Massimo Introvigne, and not information about the person’s biography; Moreover, this information - this opinion is not in the article itself. There is only an external link in the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't "dispute" anything. I have no idea who Alexander Dvorkin or Massimo Introvigne are or what the truth of any of this this, but I can see that freedomofbelief.net is an obvious advocacy site and therefore unreliable for negative claims about living persons. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it shouldn't be used as a source, it shouldn't be linked to, and in particularly egregious cases it might even be redacted or rev-deleted. Again, if you think it should stay, you need to build consensus for it. I'm removing the link again. If you continue to add it or any other BLP-violating links, I'll simply continue to add escalating warnings. Woodroar (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Woodroar. I just want to understand why you decided that this site is an advocacy site. How did you define this? I just can not understand it. So you can generally name any site and remove any information from any article. Someone did not like any information, he declares the site controversial without any reason and deletes the information. Consensus will never be reached. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I've already explained, it's an advocacy group because they say that it is. Just read that page: "It is a Federation of Associations that advocate...", "FOB is a secular platform aimed at the defence...", "FOB openly stands against...", "FOB is active in the civil society at political, cultural and social levels", "FOB is registered on the Official Register of Lobbies...", etc. Their name is Freedom of Belief! By and large, these types of organizations are not the "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require for claims about living persons. We need articles published in reputable newspapers, magazines, journals, books, places that have an editorial structure with journalists/writers, editors, and fact checkers. They don't have to be Russian sources and they don't have to be in English, either, although you'll often find a preference for English-language sources because this is the English Wikipedia and it's the language that (ostensibly) we all communicate in. I really hope this helps. I will suggest—and I will say this as politely as possible—that you go back and read through all of the links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines above. In several of your messages here, you've asked questions that I've already answered, and also made statements that show you don't understand our policies. Of course, nobody expects you to know every single policy immediately, but if someone asks that you read a policy, it's in your own interests to do so. I left the first message on your page, "Discretionary sanctions notification", because understanding and adhering to our policies on biographical details about living persons is extremely important. Failure to do so can result in topic bans and blocks. So can refusing to "get the point" or not understanding English well enough to contribute. Now please do not take this as a threat. I don't think you're at this point and you're clearly still learning about our policies. But at some point, failure to read and understand and comply with them—especially when it involves negative or controversial claims about living persons—will get you blocked. Again, I really do hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Woodroar. Thank you for the detailed explanation and for your kind attitude towards me. I’m recently on the English Wikipedia and I want to hope that the written rules are followed. To my great regret, something unimaginable, complete disgrace, the presence of the most disgusting pro-government censorship and the arbitrariness of the administration, completely ignoring the rules, are going on in Russian Wikipedia. In Russian Wikipedia, with the assistance of the administration, completely false anti-scientific statements are made in the articles, attempts to remove them and write the text are scientifically and neutrally punished by blocking. Moreover, the administration of Russian Wikipedia can ban without any reason the participants. The same picture is in the Russian segment of the Internet.Wlbw68 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Woodroar. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 7 November 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wlbw68,

Thank you for creating Nikolay Petrovich Krasnikov.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

the list of works should be shortened to only include the most notable entries.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lord's Prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23. What have I done wrong? Do you have any objections to the substance of the text? If you did not know about these scientific facts, based on the study of textual studies of manuscripts, then accept them. Why are you trying to remove information? I was very much interested in this topic and was surprised to learn about these scientific facts several years ago. I accepted them, why should we keep silent about these purely scientific facts?Wlbw68 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lord's Prayer. Elizium23 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me, you'd better answer my questions. You have nothing to answer.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied/too closeley paraphrased from http://therestorationmovement.com/_states/texas/oliphant.htm, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Diannaa, I certainly understand everything, but it is impossible to retell the biography in words that are far from the original source. Born, studied, lived there. I don't know how to do it differently. If you can, then please help and rewrite the article as you see fit, keeping the meaning. Why delete everything?Wlbw68 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's anywhere from 70 to 100 copyright reports to be checked each day. It's physically impossible for me to re-write each page that requires it, and I am under no obligation to do so. You can view this report to see the extent of the overlap. There's no need to re-write the names of schools, degrees attained, or the like. But for example "Two daughters, Eleana Mae Oliphant, and Landa Lois McCool, were born to them" could easily be re-written ("They had two daughters"). The meaning of some of the copied content is not clear. For example, what does this mean? "Later, after returning to Oklahoma, under the preaching of G. L. Gleason they all obeyed the gospel at Leach, Oklahoma in 1910"? Can it be re-worded as "They moved back to Oklahoma in 1910"?
    Here's another example: "Oliphant attended Western Oklahoma Christian College, as the Cordell school was then called". Why is the phrase "as the Cordell school was then called" included? I have no idea what it means. Perhaps it can be left out. There's other examples but I think you might be starting to see my point.
    General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible (this is usually not possible when you are presenting material chronologically). Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Wlbw68. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wlbw68, don't try to continue the discussion with Eleazar after they have made it clear they don't wish to talk. We have enough conflict on en.wiki, without importing it from other Wikipedias. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I just asked a question about the paradox: indefinite blocking and rewarding after it. The award was given to them (Eleazar). But it looks like the issue has been resolved and there is no point in discussing anything else. --Wlbw68 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]