A4

Welcome

Hello, A4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to anounce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome! --Kuban Cossack 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

-->

Adding POV categories to Holodomor

Hi. Please don't simply re-add the POV category to the Holodomor article. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page about this topic and why the category does not belong. If you disagree with the consensus, please discuss there. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there is no consensus in the talk page. On the contrary - the denial of Genocide is a POV.

I have argued my position and it is not a POV. --A4 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and POV edits

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Holodomor, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Тут, як завжди цілий інтернаціонал зібрався. Ось, людина, яка розміщує у себе шаблон, що він фанат Кагановича, вже погрожує блокуванням. Напиши йому у відповідь на сторінку, щоб не погрожував тобі, що його дії підпадають під порушення правил про недопущення погроз, і т.д. і т.п. А краще витри цю херню, як звичайну персональну атаку. --Yakudza 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Зараз [[1]] --A4 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a threat, mr. Yakudza, but an official en wiki boilerplate vandalism warning. And pushing a POV against an obvious consensus sure counts as one. And please avoid terms like "херню" (bullsh*t for those reading us), since it is obviously a personal attack. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Это именно персональная атака и угрозы в нарушение всех полисов Википедии (see WP:NPA). Участник, разместивший это, не имеет никакого права делать. Он не должен делать заявлений в таком вызывающем и недружественном. К тому же, разместивший эту угрозу пользователь, более чем никто. Он не администратор - он хам. Да и администрар не может так направо и налево разбрасывать угрозы. Относительно согласованности по Голодомору, то это мягко говоря неправда. Дискуссия на эту тему идет уже довольно долго на странице обсуждения статьи и до согласия там еще очень далеко. В свою очередь, я могу порекомендовать А4 не совершать значительные редакции статей без предварительного обсуждения. --Yakudza 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

А де можна поскаржитись на свавілля адмінів? Щодо правила 24 годин - тут я дійсно порушив (я думав, що відлік ведеться від 0:00 до 23:59). А от стосовно "вандалізму" User talk:Sebbeng - це типове свавілля. --A4 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Можливо, що не варто скаржитись. Спробуй написати на сторінку адміна, можливо він просто не розібрався. А що ти можеш писати заблокованим на своїй сторінці? --Yakudza 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Скаржитися треба. Не поскаржитися - нічого не зміниться - це Америка. You should press charges, otherwise nothing will be changed.--Vladyslav Savelo 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User_talk:Sebbeng, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:Sebbeng 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

(aeropagitica) 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. (aeropagitica) 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that made the vandalism. You mistakenned. --Yakudza 20:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a three revert rule violation, actually. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Привіт Андрію, не варто було витирати попередження від адміна (aeropagitica), а тільки персональні атаки від того Sebbeng. Бо там нічого крім персональних атак не було. --Yakudza 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

Per the discussion on ANI, I've blocked you for a week. Yanksox 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Block per WP:BOT

You have been blocked for running an unauthorised bot. Please place an {{unblock}} request once the bot is shut down. Agathoclea 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked. Please wait for approval until you use the bot on your new bot account. Agathoclea 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Approved

I've approved your bot for operations. —Mets501 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A4Bot

Dear Mets501, You are not right about User:A4bot. Here you wtore that the username A4Bot is inappropriate, but it is not true. Here this bot was approved for operations. As you can see the name A4bot was quite acceptible for my bot. Please don't disturb me with incorrect remarks ever more. Thank you for understanding, regards --A4 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused. I'm the one who approved your bot, and never said anything about it being inappropriate. To avoid messages such as the one you received by Ciphershort on your bot's talk page make sure to only make real edits under your real username and only make bot edits under your bot username. —Mets501 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlegitime blocking by User:Alex Bakharev

User:Alex Bakharev blocked my IP adress 77.123.148.219 with a reason "because your IP address was recently used by "A4bot". The reason given for A4bot's block is: "unauthorized bot".

This reason is not true! Here my bot have alredy got a flag (Here is a file log), thus it is not "unauthorized". Please unblock me. --A4 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked. Please note that your bots edits don't show the bot bit. I might take that up with the b'crat that gave you bot-status. On a further note - there is some ongoing dispute about the status of the ru-sib wiki. Agathoclea 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you please comment on my request at WP:ANI#War of the Bots, regarding ru-sib interwiki links? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with A4bot

Hi, on a different note (entirely unrelated to the ru-sib issue): there seems to be a small technical bug in your bot. Regarding edits like this [2], please configure the bot in such a way that it won't make changes to pages in the "Template:" namespace. Or if it does, make sure that it includes all wikilinks added to Templates within <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Otherwise, all pages that include the template will have the template's interwiki link displayed themselves. For instance, after it changed the Template:User uk, all user pages of Ukrainian users were displaying interwiki links to the corresponding babel pages on other wikis. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead Interwiki Links in India

I've been deleting the interwiki deadlinks from the India article, but your bot keeps adding them (okay, he can't know). Is there a way to prevent it from adding them? There were about 40 interwiki links that lead to empty articles or candidates for speedy delete in other Wikipedias, that will often not be deleted in the near future. — N-true 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, I don't know how it caused. Possibly there was incorrect interwiki's in some others wikipedias. But it's not true that my bot keeps adding. It happened only once [3] --A4 10:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it might keep readding it if I simply removed the links again, so I didn't do anything. The problem is, that the links aren't realldy dead, but just lead to empty pages or pages with no valuable content... or pages that are supposed to be deleted. Is there a way, maybe, to prevent A4bot from adding interwiki links to the India article? — N-true 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I shan't touch the article India any more. But now I have a great problem with my bot in English wiki. It looks like sombody unlegitimately blocked it. Could you possibly help me see what's happened? --A4 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't know much about bots and I'm not an expert on admins' work... but there's a message on your bot's talk page, that might explain it (not sure, though). I also don't know how to find out who blocked your bot; sorry. — N-true 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

Your bot removed a perfectly good link to the Hebrew page on the English page for Regions of Turkey. WTF? Rarelibra 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was mistake. What is WTF? --A4 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with A4 bot (lung cancer page)

Hi there,

Just to say that the A4bot just made a strange edit to the lung cancer page in which it converted Rontgen equivalent man to what looked like a link to a Romanian language page under Ro:ntgen equivalent man. That said, it appears there was a typo in the link previously, but I can't be completely sure.

The bot's edit is here [4], and my revision here [5]. Thanks! Nmg20 16:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems it was a mistake in the word [[Ro:ntgen equivalent man]] and robot red it as iwiki --A4 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ru-sib on Ingria, again

Sorry, I've blocked your bot, as it again made that controversial edit on Ingria. As you know, there's been a long-standing warning against bots engaging in that edit-war (see also here). Please fix your bot so it won't be making edits which you know are contentious and likely to be reverted again. Of course, you are free to work for the inclusion of that link in some other way - but please use proper dispute resolution then, and if you need to make contentious edits, make them manually and with proper explanation. Bots must not be used for pushing an opinion in a dispute by revert-warring.

This bot can be unblocked any time as soon as the owner explains how they are going to stop it from edit-warring.

Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You blocking is not legitimate because there was no any consensus about interwiki's in article Ingria. Also there is no police that forbid to interwiki's to this article as well as there is no police forbidding to add interwiki's to ru-sib wikipedia. --A4 10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You apparently didn't take in what I wrote just above. There certainly is no policy against linking to ru-sib, but there just as certainly is a policy against revert-warring. Bots must not revert-war. It's a dispute, work it out. But don't use your bot to push your opinion mechanically.

Fellow admins, in case of an unblock request, I won't be around for the next few days so feel free to decide this without consulting me. But please read carefully the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 2#Interwiki bots forcing unwanted links, WP:BOWN#Interwiki bots forcing unwanted links, again and at Talk:Ingria#ru-sib links again, and consider the Wikipedia:Bot policy, which states that bots need to be "harmless", backed by "appropriate community consensus for each task", and abide "by all guidelines, policies and common practices". For the record, I stand by this block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy only about 3 revert editions, but my bot did only 1 edition for today, so you did unligitimate. --A4 10:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring is forbidden generally, whether it's a slow edit war or not. 3RR is not an entitlement to keep making fewer than three. This particular edit has been made and reverted dozens of times over the last months, which makes the continuing of the reverting certainly a source of disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingria&action=history - previos reverts are not mine. And there is no rule for making less then 3RR for one user. You are doing unligitimate! --A4 10:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've said what I had to say about this, and I must go now and will be away for a while. Your best bet if you want a review of this block is to put up an unblock request in the normal way. Note that the block has been only against the bot account, A4bot (talk · contribs), not against the main account itself. You are aware you yourself are still free to edit whatever you like, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am and I'm not going to spend my time for the Ingria article - I do know you will abuse your adminship to block me too. But you are doing unligitimately and must to do something you stop doing like that. Unfortunately I don't know how to do "unblock request in the normal way" --A4 11:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I won't block you -- I didn't block the revert warriors on the other side either, did I? But I still ask you, if you want to deal with the article, please use responsible dispute resolution methods. -- An unblock request is made by putting up {{unblock|reason=blah blah blah}} here on your talkpage (or that of the bot), with a brief explanation for your request filled in for the reviewing admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already did it on the page talk. blah blah blah - what is it? is it something on russian? --A4 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unligitimate blocking

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).

A4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked my bot unligitimately, abusing his adminship for his own purpose. Discussion could be seen above.

Decline reason:

Your bot is edit warring on that page. You must configure it not to do so. Once you have, and you show us how you fixed this, we will unblock. Administrators: Do not unblock without consulting a WP:BAG member or interwiki bot operator who can confirm that the bot is now functioning properly. — --ST47Talk·Desk 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

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 second this unblock denial. Sorry, A4, but bots might revert human editors only in case of vandalism. Enforcing one side of a dispute by a bot is already bad, but doing that only because that way is technically simpler to implement is worse. Tizio 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)r

It is not true that I use my bot for Enforcing one side of a dispute. I run this bot automatically in all language wikiprojects and english was not an exclusion. So the blocking was unligitimate - you don't have any policies for blocking. --A4 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever said you did that intentionally. However, the edits of your bot are effectively, even if unintentionally, supporting one side of a dispute. This is the problem: disputes are for humans, not for bots. Tizio 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seem's to be your POV, but there is no such police in english wikipedia. Thus the blocking was not ligitimately. I'm terribly disturbed that english administrators are so unlawful to abuse their adminship for enforcing their side of disput --A4 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's clear by now, there is sufficient consensus that these edits are harmful; the block is therefore appropriate per WP:BOT. As for the policy saying "bots must not edit-war with humans (apart from vandals)", I agree this is not written in any policy page; a lot of other obvious things are not written anywhere; this one could be added to WP:BOT, if really needed. Tizio 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is awfull. And what does mean "can confirm that the bot is now functioning properly" in case when the bot is blocked? --A4 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It means you explain how you've fixed the problem. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The explanation about fixing a bot's problem

According to the urgent request above I show anyone intrested in that my fixing the problem is the next:

while starting bot to make interwiki's to the article Ingria or starting to make a lot of articles which could include the article Ingria to ignore english wikipedia by extraction the line usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'A4bot' from my user-config file.

Is that enough? --A4 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more like a WP:POINT. --Irpen 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. --A4 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Another past discussion on topic

There was a detailed discussion of the issue at Your "Sib-wiki" promotion, please cut it! threads that you commented out. Other editors are welcome to read it omitting entries in Ukrainian left in defiance on my opposition to using non-English in en-wiki space. Anyway, there is enough English there to get an overall idea. --Irpen 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In that topic I argued that siberian wiki is a full value wiki project (not en external site, as User:Irpen thought) and it is a disrespect to Wikipedia fondation to withdraw syberian interwiki. As you now request for deletion syberian project is not satisfied quite for a long time. Therefore it's terrible that I must obey the lawlessness in the english wikipedia. --A4 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[This discussion was not quite about the foundation stuff. This was actually a minor point. All I am saying is that everyone is invited to read it as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#iwiki link removal, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#War of the Bots threads of many others. --Irpen 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Your bot has been unblocked, please see the note at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fairness --A4 10:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		Awarded to A4 for outstanding global translation efforts for Wikipedia. Your work is recognized and appreciated. Thank you for all you do. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A4 Bot

The bot puts Ukrainskii names last name first contrary to the way that names are listed in other similar languages. Is this intentional? Why the inversion? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have such rule for naming pesons in ukrainian wikipedia, it is almost the same as in russian and continues the soviet tradition of encyclopedia namings. In any case interwiki bot names articles as they are named in wikiprojects. --A4 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)