User talk:Art of Odessa

Speedy deletion nomination of Valentin Khrushch

Hello Art of Odessa,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Valentin Khrushch for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

NaturalSelection (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All is great now. Thanks

Dear NaturalSelection,

Valentin Khrushch - is one of the founders of the unofficial art in USSR and Odessa nonconformism. The article is based on the Russian analog. To place Valentin Khrushch under deletion is wrong

Valentin Khrushch

Hello, Art of Odessa! Just letting you know that I tagged your new article, Valentin Khrushch, for a lack of reliable citations and for not belonging to any categories. Please don't remove the templates until the problems are resolved. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page!

Rtt11^talk 20:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! Thank you for your help! Valentin Khrushch is a very famous Soviet artist. All materials are based on Russian sources, which we used to create the English version, to acquaint the English-speaking audience with this interesting artist. If possible, we will add links

Sounds good! If you have any questions about reliable sources or categories, let me know!

Rtt11^talk 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Art of Odessa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please disclose any COI, and please do not edit articles in which you have a commercial interest or COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above, please disclose any COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear ThatMontrealIP

I don't understand what a problem? I love art and will to make all of this pages more better. All of them are famous ukrainian artist of different time. If you will help to make them better, it's ok and it will be good. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art of Odessa (talk • contribs)

Do you have any commmercial interest in these articles, or connection to the artists? Your username sounds a lot like a gallery, and we have many galleries trying to promote their artists here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP I really don't haveany commmercial interest in these articles and connection to the artists. I love art and I am very interested in different Ukrainian artists of different directions and time. Therefore, I ask you not to delete what I am doing, it has an informational non-commercial purpose. And I spend my free time on it.

ThatMontrealIP And what about my login. I just live in Odessa and have good knowledge in arthistory of this region and Ukraine as a whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art of Odessa (talk • contribs)

Ok, thank you. Since you have no connection to the artists it is no problem. I will leave you a note at the bottom of this page about how to sign your posts, so that your name shows up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you one more time! --Art of Odessa (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC) no conflict. thanks[reply]

June 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Art of Odessa, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Vasiliy Ryabchenko have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this explanation to my earlier edit explains why there is a copyright violation on the Vasiliy Ryabchenko article. The first two sentences of Vasiliy Ryabchenko are directly taken from this source, which is why I rewrote them. I will edit it again for now, but feel free to re-write the sentences in your own words if you'd like. Let me know if you have any questions! Best - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thank you for your help and useful tips, will be in touch! --Art of Odessa (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Whisperjanes Hope you are well! Pls check Valentin Khrushch page.I have compiled some links and updated information. --Art of Odessa (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Art of Odessa: I hope you are doing well too. I can't help you much on the links since many of them are in Russian. Just make sure that whichever links you add at the end of sentences verify all of the facts in the sentence - see WP:INTEGRITY for more information. If you are adding a reference to an already written sentence, then the link you are referencing should support all of the facts in that sentence, not just some of the facts. This might mean you have to re-write or split up certain sentences, or add a citation in the middle of a sentence next to the fact it verifies. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whisperjanes: Thank you! Understand. And what about Lucien Dulfan now? I have written some information + links

Best --Art of Odessa (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Hello, I have just removed a copyright-violating section from Valentin Khrushch in this edit. It appears that you added it to the article back in 2017. Please be careful about this. Wikipedia has very low tolerance for repeat copyright violations. I know this is an old one and you have apparently changed your ways, but this kind of thing can quickly lead to your account being blocked. be sure not to copy and paste material without proper attribution.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Vasiliy Ryabchenko there appears to be more copyvio. Not good. Was this also from 2017? Have you stopped copying material into articles? Each time you do this it creates work for other editors to clean it up. 01:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to write a unique text this days--Art of Odessa (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Art of Odessa,

you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia to promote an artist/art gallery?

It's quite unusual to have an artist's visualization of a computer virus appear within the infobox at the heading of a technical article, like CIH (computer virus). As I mentioned in my edit summary when I replaced it, I suppose the image could be included in an Art section within the article, but even then I have my doubts it really belongs there at all, because it really looks like it's here to promote an artist and/or art gallery, especially because you seem really intent on keeping it here, even going to the point of threatening other editors ("If you delete it again, you will be banned", and "Don't touch the article."). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @UncleBubba: I also found it curious that Art of Odessa managed to upload a series of copyrighted images to Commons, then the images were all quickly approved via OTRS. That means there is some coordination between Art of Odessa and the artist. Could you explain this please, Art of Odessa?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had a little more time to look, I find myself wondering if the account Mr.Perepel plays some role in this little tale here? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not thinking about that and don’t understand the essence of the issue. I have been studying Ukrainian art for many years, primarily Odessa artists, and I found it appropriate and interesting to add a section" Computer viruses in art ", which directly answers the topic and is backed up by history and articles. It is strange that you didn’t find this particularly interesting and important ... Besides, you are wasting your time deleting my actions, which makes me doubt whether Wikipedia needs such an editor, so I urge you to stop this and start editing your articles if there are any. --Art of Odessa (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the question. It seems like you have a strong COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing. Interesting... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Art of Odessa: You're misinterpreting my actions, and making assumptions about my motives. The operative question is not whether or not I find your friend's/brother's/father's/whomever art interesting or important, the question is whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article on a particular variant of a computer virus. If a reader looks up a Ford Mustang, he expects to see a picture of a car, not a piece of interpretive art. If you had inserted the image into an article on computer art, you (most likely) would not have heard a word from me. Based on your behavior, I suspect you are using Wikipedia to promote these artists for some reason.

You also told me to go edit "my articles". In Wikipedia, no one "owns" any article, and anyone behaving as though they do are not tolerated for long by the community. For more information, see WP:OWNER. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered that I have no connection with anyone, I am writing about Odessa artists, including the dynasties. And I think that adding a section "Computer viruses in art" is not only appropriate, but also necessary. This fits the topic and as a section in the article it is needed. I also propose to put an image in it, which I did. As the title image, I only put it in those cases when any image was missing.--Art of Odessa (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this image, uploaded here, then approved by OTRS 3 hours later? To get approved the gallery or artist has to send permission. You obviously have some part in that. it is the same situation with most of the images you have uploaded.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking part. It is obvious that everyone is reacting very quickly today. --Art of Odessa (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ThatMontrealIP By the way, if you have the time and desire, I need help in finalizing the article about Lucien Dulfan. I will be grateful. --Art of Odessa (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were sockpuppeting on Wikimedia commons; it is obvious you are not being honest here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do everything within the law, and my articles are good, you know that. Don't waste your time and mine, please. --Art of Odessa (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but your accusations are ridiculous. --Art of Odessa (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art of Odessa. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 13 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Good afternoon. Sorry for the incident with two accounts, I was not aware of all the Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately, I really didn't know that I couldn't edit articles from two accounts at once. I would also like to publicly apologize for the rude communication with the Wikipedia administrator. I highly ask to unblock me, this will not happen again. I would like to continue to work on creating articles in the manner of Wikipedia law. Art of Odessa (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You knew perfectly well about sockpuppetry, having been caught for this and blocked, over on wikimedia commons. Yamla (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2020 (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.

@Art of Odessa: Before you come back, I would really like to see some assurances from you that you understand the principles upon which Wikipedia operates. Several people have spent a great deal of their time writing to you, suggesting articles to read to improve your understanding of Wikipedia; your responses seem to show not only that you don't read the suggested material, you don't even read everything they wrote.

Keeping Wikipedia true to its founding principles requires a lot of work. When you began inserting unrelated artwork into technical articles, some people (myself included) tried to explain to you why it wasn't appropriate. Instead of listening, discussing, and learning, you became belligerent, even telling people "do not touch the page" (or something like that). You spoke condescendingly to (or outright insulted) several editors, including me.

You seem to have a passion for promoting Odessan (is that the correct demonym?) artists, or artists from Ukraine. If that's your goal, it may not be compatible with Wikipedia. Exaggerating accomplishments (e.g. calling an invitation to bid on an airport project an "award", describing the invited artist as a "Laureate of the Tampa International Airport Public Art Project", or saying "Grand Prix" of the Art-Act instead of "winner") is marketing language, and belongs in a brochure, not in an encyclopedia.

Likewise, your promotion of the Strange Time website was more marketing hype than informative. You directly transferred text from a copyrighted news publication into the article, forcing one editor, and another administrator, to work to remove it, and you exaggerated the form, purpose, and content of the site to make it sound like more than it is.

If you can channel your energy into writing about any of the hundreds of beautiful and interesting things about Ukraine that English speakers rarely have an opportunity to read about, you could make a stellar contribution to the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you see Wikipedia as a free ticket into search engines, and a no-cost promotional vehicle, you should stay away.

You're actually quite good at writing marketing language. I'd be willing to bet there are companies that will pay you to do that, and you can work from anywhere on the planet, too. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UncleBubba: Good day. First of all, I would like to apologize to you, of course I was wrong, I had bad days and I had no reason to let the steam off towards you. I am really ashamed. Thank you for writing to me. I study art, cultural studies and know many Ukrainian artists, and as you rightly noted, I would like to acquaint the English-speaking part of the world with the culture of Ukraine so that they know more about our country. I had no goals to promote artists, rather, the goal was to present them beautifully, perhaps it turned out too beautifully ... If you allow me to continue editing, I promise to listen to your advice and take steps towards my development under your supervision. I am well versed in art and know its terminology and I am sure I can contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Again, I am very sorry for my actions. Respectfully. --Art of Odessa (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My notes on this would be that Art of Odessa is obviously an autobiography account that also creates articles for their friends and family. Their first two account names (before Art of Odessa) on Commons were Ryabchenko names, in both English (Sergiyryabchenko)and Russian (Рябченко Василий Сергеевич scripts. Since then they have created huge articles on Ryabchencko family artists, and promoted their interests (e.g. Strange Time.) They've stonewalled, deceived and socked consistently here and in other projects; they are having the same problem at the moment on ru.wikipedia, where Odessa and Perepel were socking as recently as July 4 to develop fake concensus at a deletion discussion. Having them on any wiki will compromise neutrality, as their intent is personal promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day ThatMontrealIP I completely understand your point. I have already admitted my fault of having two accounts and how I have learned since that was against Wikipedia rules. I will from now on only use Art of Odessa in all my edits and the other will be deleted and ever used again on either US or Russian Wikipedia.

I accept your note on this and will do everything in the future to regain your confidence in me. I really just want to promote Ukrainian artists and their role in the world. --Art of Odessa (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been caught on three different Wikipedia projects socking (Commons, en-wiki, and just now checkuser on ru.wikipedia confirmed that you were socking there). Clearly you knew that you were using multiple accounts to manipulate discussions or promote your view, as it was explained to you that multiple accounts were not allowed for these purposes. Uncle Bubba and I are not admins, if you want to get unblocked you have to request it through the process you used earlier today, as above. I have commented here as I think you should not be unblocked, as you refuse to admit the obvious Ryabchenko COI and have been caught socking on multiple projects. Also you wasted a lot of editor time figuring this out.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that should read four Wikipedia projects, as Mr.Perpel and art of Odessa were editing many of the same articles on Ukrainian Wikipedia as well. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 15 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I have already admitted my fault of having two accounts and how I have learned since that was against Wikipedia rules. I will from now on only use Art of Odessa in all my edits and the other will be deleted and ever used again on either US or Russian Wikipedia. I accept your note on this and will do everything in the future to regain your confidence in me. Art of Odessa (talk) 12:09 pm, 15 August 2020, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

When you were initially confronted about having two accounts, you said "An uninteresting, common situation. You'd better solve your problems... You apparently have a lot of free time, since you are looking for problems that don’t exist. Articles are edited by different people, do not fit me into a mold." So if you didn't know it was a problem to have two accounts, why did you lie to claim that one wasn't yours? Sounds like you were intentionally manipulating the situation. Based on the sockpuppetry and the pervasive conflict of interest concerns, I'm declining this request.only (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2020 (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've restored your original declined block request that you overwrote with a new one. Declined requests cannot be removed while the block remains in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 17 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I accept your note on this and will do everything in the future to regain your confidence in me Art of Odessa (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, you're going to need to do better than that to restore our confidence. Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2020 (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.

Oh, boy... And it's only been 21 days. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Strange Time for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strange Time 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/Strange Time until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]