User talk:Лемберг

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

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

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boris Lozhkin

The article Boris Lozhkin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander (Aaron) Levin

Hello Лемберг,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Alexander (Aaron) Levin, may be copied from http://wfrj.org/about-us/the-president/. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Bodiadub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Account blocked unreasonably Лемберг (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dear administrators, I carefully studied the Wikipedia rules, including the section sock puppet, and came to the conclusion that my account was blocked unreasonably. My account is not related to this account Bodiadub. Please unblock my account. Yours faithfully Лемберг (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

But what would be the point of blocking people for sockpuppetry, of even having a rule that says "no sockpuppets" if we just took people at their word when they said they weren't the person behind the previously blocked account? There may be situations where this is true, but in our experience they are extremely rare, so almost as a rule we decline any request for unblock that makes that argument. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2021 (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.