User talk:RaRaRasputin

Note[edit]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hatla chemical attack for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla chemical attack 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/Hatla chemical attack 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. Domdeparis (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You must not edit a Afd that has been closed. This is clearly stated on the page. Thank you Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. A quick review of your edits gives the clear impression that you are making no attempt to edit within the requirements of WP:NPOV and exercise the due care required by the letter and spirit of general sanctions on this subject area. VQuakr (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I would argue quite the opposite and your warning is evidence of POV-pushing and such. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sarmin chemical attack

added a link pointing to White Helmets

White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

added a link pointing to White Helmets

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR rule[edit]

Sorry, but you have breached the 1RR rule with your edits here and here. You will need to undo this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have done. Thanks for highlighting this. I assumed after creating an article on Shajul Islam that it would not qualify under 1RR as a breach. Would you be so kind to explain where I am going wrong? Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an 1RR breach regardless of the changes. There are certain exceptions, such as obvious vandalism or the enforcement of overriding WP policies, but even then it's still an 1RR breach and people may challenge it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That is clear. Thanks. Perhaps you would be so kind to replace the text for me? In whatever position or manner you see fit, I would be even more grateful. If it is not in your interests however, don't worry. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously when I wrote "certain exceptions", I meant that you can get away with violating the rule in those cases. I'll have a look at your changes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make the changes, actually, because I have already used my 1RR today. It's best to take it to the talk first anyway, since it will likely be removed within hours of it being restored. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for general non-neutral editing and BLP violations in an area covered by general sanctions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 16 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea what I have been blocked for. Please would you be so kind to provide evidence in order that I may either be unblocked or correct alleged non-neutral editing and BLP violations in future? Thanks! :)

Decline reason:

I have pointed out some of the BLP issues here. Huon (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (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.

The edits which actually caused this block were the ones that created this atrocious WP:BLP: [1] If you still wish to appeal, I will copy your appeal to the appropriate noticeboard and recommend you be given a longer topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of appealing a block that may cause a longer block. That wouldn't be very constructive at all. Your reply has been and I have analyzed the differences between your reference and the current revision. The problem seems to be my use of the words propagandist and actor to describe Shajul Islam, which I admit may not seem neutral to describe him from certain viewpoints, upon reflection. I hope you can understand the circumstances however, after reviewing similar videos of the Sarmin chemical attack, why I would be inclined to use such language to describe him and you might think not so "atrocious" at all if you watch them. I will try to remain more brief in future to avoid such words which could appear non-neutral after the block expires. Unless we can forget all about it and unblock me anyway? :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was what triggered the block, not the sole cause of it. For example, this shows you have clear difficulty in understanding how to edit in this area. You can take these three days to read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as otherwise, a topic ban is likely in your future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now Neil, I was encouraged to do that by User:Exemplo347! Exemplo urged me on to do that and told me I was free to without impunity in this edit - [2] I am a new editor and can hardly help it if these more senior comrades are giving me bad advice (although I have spotted some other naughty ones out there). You should block User:Exemplo347 too if you're serious about this, or it's not fair! Can't we negotiate it down to 24 or 48 hours? I am really sorry and have re-assessed the consensus POV since that incident. I have also read and re-read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP five times over, especially for you. ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Shajul Islam goes free and I get blocked for 72 hours. Typical. Happy Easter comrades! [3] :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shajul Islam has now been turned into a redirect here [4] by someone else (Redacted). There is also a highly dubious WP:BLP1E that can be resolved with this article and various others regarding charitable donations from organizations to this man outside the Khan Shaykoun incident. [5] I would be very grateful if anyone reading this can restore it while I am blocked. (Redacted) RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have again violated the BLP policy and engaged in incivil commentary in your most recent comment you are now subject to the following sanction for six months:

Topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) in no less than three months, however you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, you cannot just accuse someone of incivility without any evidence. You are endangering every man, woman and child on the planet in doing so. As mentioned in the redacted comments, I will take a very dim view of such behavior. I would much rather become a martyr than continue editing anyway. Ban me and I will become stronger than you can possibly imagine. RaRaRasputin (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban[edit]

Your topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed, includes this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For incivil commentary. To better inform Callanecc, an example of this would be calling Theodore Postol a "retired scientist" instead of "leading chemical weapons expert". That is the very definition of incivility, not trumped up, no-proof, codswallop. I hope this will help you identify and ban incivil users better in future. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? According to MIT [6], he is a professor emeritus. Anyway, someone fixed it already, which I do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. That is a much better description. Thank you for listening. I hope I have been able to assist and influence your opinions somewhat. Anyway, we shouldn't be discussing this and they should be banning me. My very best wishes too. RaRaRasputin (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why did you call yourself "Rasputin"? Do you like him? This is like calling yourself "Satan".My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes I think you're just trying to provoque him. His user name is Ra Ra Rasputin which is a line from the Boney M song and you might want to read this Grigori Rasputin if you really want to know who Rasputin was, most of what we think we know comes from films and (oddly enough seeing the NPOV activity of this user) propaganda aimed at discrediting the Tsar and Tsarine. And do user names reflect exactly what the person is trying to communicate? ;o) Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reply. No, that was normal question/conversation in my culture. I did not know about the song. Rasputin is probably the most "demonic" character in Russian history, although speaking objectively, he was nothing compare to Lenin, Stalin, or even to Nikolas the Bloody. Yes, I think that users frequently select their names to reflect how they perceive themselves or how they want others to perceive them. That's OK. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Rasputin was a peasant who ended feudalism and advanced Russia on to something else, he can hardly be blamed for Stalin. Domdeparis is as insightful as he is well informed and with good music taste. I hope you like the song, it's light-hearted and English, my love. RaRaRasputin (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Can hardly be blamed for Stalin". Hmm... I was thinking: what Rasputin and Stalin had in common? Suddenly it was that: "Among the Rabbit's staff at Stalin's villas was an experienced and trusted cook who rather extraordinarily had served Rasputin and Lenin, and now cooked for Stalin, too. This was President Vladimir Putin's grandfather. Given that he cooked for Rasputin, Lenin and Stalin, he is surely the most world-historical chef of modern times." (by Simon Sebag Montefiore)[7]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As about peasant, yes, I think his next charlatan reincarnation was Trofim Lysenko. Do not you see that they look very similar? My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of Lysenko is in black and white and I cannot find any evidence his eyes were as deep and as bright blue as Rasputin's. Lysenko was a loon and a charlatan in any case . Along with being a peasant, Rasputin was adept with animal magnetism, which is a skill and charm that could easily be confused with charlatanism by some. I don't think the comparison is very valid and consider Starets the most accurate description for the man. This would be after reviewing his daughter's memoirs as a primary source of highest reliability, then looking at the rest later in something akin to scientific method. Maria Rasputin wrote this poem about her father:

     RASPUTIN.  WHY?
     I am the daughter of Grigory Efimovich Rasputin.
     I was baptized by Matryona, my family called me Maria.
     Father - Marochka.  Now I'm 48 years old.
     Almost as much as his father,
     When he was taken from the house by a terrible man - Felix Yusupov.
     I remember everything and never tried to forget anything.
     From what was happening to me or my family
     (No matter how foes count on it).
     I do not cling to memories, as do those,
     Who are inclined to savor their misfortunes.
     I just live by them.
     I really love my father.
     As much as others hate it.
     I can not force others to love him.
     I do not aspire to this, as my father did not aspire.
     Like him, I want only understanding.  But, I'm afraid - and this is excessive, when 
     We are talking about Rasputin.

In her memoirs [8] that you might like.

Matryona had daughters. Beware. There are Rasputins out there! Anyhow, where do you live? Perhaps I could call over and cook you Stroganoff or Coulibiac. We could discuss all those chemical weapons edits that I can't make until this ban is over? RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read this book by Valentin Pikul about Rasputin. That was illuminating, just as other books by the same author. Good luck. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have got to stop finding illumination from all this late-Soviet era material as we should shy to "illuminate" others with late-US era material. These days YouTube [9] Twitter and Facebook are the voice of the people and 90% of the posts on this subject and unmentionable ones know the truth. Don't they teach how to identify bias in historical material these days? At least the Wikipedia page about Rasputin is well balanced to this extent with the latest evidence and highlights most of the official story is the result of Stalinist propaganda. As my namesake, I will issue a chilling prophecy of doom "If I am banned by my brothers, the peasants, then you have nothing to fear, but if it is your relations who have brought about my banishment then none of your team will remain as editors more than two years. They will all be banned by the people". Rasputin did not only heal a kid that should be dead and end feudalism but along with the transvestite, drug-addicted delinquents that killed him, we now have to run disclaimers "Any resemblance between actors in the film and real persons is incidental" before every movie, and Wikipedian. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia are not WP:RS. The books by historians are. But I must run. Good bye. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I am fully aware of that. I have read plenty of books by historians too. But it is fairly easy to watch YouTube for a few minutes these days [10], find an appropriate WP:RS and make an edit to reveal the truth [11] and suggest such behavior should be encouraged and not suppressed for the sake of justice. Hope you have a nice night. RaRaRasputin (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to close this discussion as irrelevant. Beware, your comments and edits so far qualify as WP:Not here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now, not more unfounded allegations?!? How on earth do useful edits like this [12] solving of Grigori Rasputin's torture and murder qualify as WP:Not here? They are very present. RaRaRasputin (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly what I am talking about. Oswald Rayner did not kill Rasputin. Your are inserting WP:FRINGE content on the page, and your edit was correctly reverted by other contributors. This is not a place to "solve" anything.My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who put the bullet in his forehead then? You will have to explain how 2 books published by reliable publishers (one by an intelligence historian, another a former Metropolitan Police Service commander) publicized in the Daily Telegraph, nationally viewed television programmes and BBC press releases are WP:FRINGE, not reliable and widely read sources in some way to justify that comment and erasure of the truth. The BBC broadcast to the entire nation of the United Kingdon, to make this decision renders every one of their citizens widely held views somehow WP:FRINGE. RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 144 hours for canvassing support in violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

First, no-one has informed me of any decent reason for the topic ban, so it isn't valid. Secondly, I wasn't canvassing support, merely referring to a pint of beer that I owed Erlbaeko after a bet I lost with him over a football game in February 2015, I just wanted to know when I could pay him back the beer that I owed him! Honest guvnor!

Decline reason:

What Beeblebrox said. I've changed your block to indefinite for your added WP:GAMING + WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. I suggest no one unblocks until RaRaRasputin explains why he was topic banned in his own words and cuts out the "what, me?" act. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 23 April 2017 (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.

I fixed that for you, but would suggest that insulting the intelligence of your fellow Wikipedians with transparent lies is probably not the best way to get anyone to seriously consider an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you what I am topic banned for! Since when does the accused have to make up their own crime. The burden of evidence is on the accuser and I cannot work in a system like this. The reason I was topic banned in my opinion was to stop me telling anyone that Al Qaeda (or the Syrian opposition if you like) has Sarin and used it at the February 2015 Darayya chemical attack. I believe the admin who banned me might have links to British Intelligence to stop this information getting out before the next phoney attack trying to drag us into World War 3. In Erlbaeko's latest source, it ends "The mainstream media is the engine of democracy. Without an independent media providing accurate and unbiased information to citizens, a government can do pretty much what it chooses without interference from the citizens who elected it. The critical function of the mainstream media in the current situation should be to report the facts that clearly and unambiguously contradict government claims. It is a sacred duty of the mainstream media to our democracy and its people to investigate and report on this matter properly." I have done my best to do that within your rules as much as I can and am very proud of it and people who have helped me. We are the mainstream media and it is our sacred duty to do our best. RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain why you were blocked. You made this edit in which you appeared to be attempting to get Erlbaeko to edit the February 2015 Darayya chemical attack page when you had been topic banned from "the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed." Secondly, even if you didn't agree with the reasons for the topic ban, that doesn't mean it isn't valid. It continues to be valid until you successfully appeal it, which you could have done at WP:AN assuming the community agreed with you. Third, no one buys the "referring to a pint of beer" claim (this is the WP:GAMING + WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT referenced above). Fourth, claiming that a long term admin "might have links to British Intelligence" is just stupid, if not uncivil and a personal attack. Now that your talk page access has been revoked, your only way to appeal (assuming you actually know what you did wrong and will not repeat the behavior) is through the WP:Unblock Ticket Request System -Obsidi (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Obsidi. This is an arbitration enforcement block so the only course of appeal is through Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN. Maybe I missed something, as far as I am aware the block was in response to a violation of the topic ban based on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is a community imposed discretionary sanction regime per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive253#Request_to_amend_sanctions_on_Syrian_civil_war_articles. As such WP:AN is the appropriate place to appeal. Can you point me to the ArbCom case that you think this falls under or the WP:AE case that imposed the topic ban that was violated? Or some other reason you think this is an ArbCom based block? -Obsidi (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsidi: You're right. The point I was trying to (poorly) make was the block won't be lifted by a single admin via UTRS. The appeal needs to go to WP:AN or Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I told them to use UTRS as he cannot appeal directly to WP:AN (due to his block and talk page restriction), so I recommended that he sends a request in through UTRS if he wishes to. What I didn't mention (as I assumed the admin would know it) is that the admin that receives the unblock request will then forward it on to WP:AN to decide. -Obsidi (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. Talk page access revoked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hatla airstrike for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla airstrike 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/Hatla airstrike 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. Domdeparis (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]