User talk:Kursant504

March 2023

Hello Kursant504. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Kursant504. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kursant504|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a paid editing disclosure at Russian Wikipedia ([1]): note that you have to disclose which exact contributions are paid, who is the final client, and any intermediaries. Best, MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current rules, I am not obliged to specify which contribution in ru-wiki is paid.Kursant504 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. You have previously indicated that you were paid to edit about the war in Ukraine, and the propaganda term you use "Special Military Operation" may reveal the nature and focus of your contribution. ·Carn·!? 08:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me more: on what basis did you decide that I am making any changes for payment in en-wiki? Kursant504 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, since you disclosed you've received payments but did not specify the contributions. That's why I'm asking. This applies to all Wikimedia projects, since it's part of the global Terms of Use: you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. Best, MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply to all Wikimedia projects. I ask again: why do you think that I making any changes for payment in en-wiki? Or you just write such text to all random users? Kursant504 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I explained initially, I'm asking because you have a paid editing disclosure without specifying the contributions, so I don't know if you made changes for payment in enwiki or not. That's why I posted here the standard warning first, and a follow up explanation on why I posted it. To your last question: yes, I do write these messages to many users whenever there are incomplete disclosures. You're free to ignore this, of course. MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you can see that I completed the minimum required by the rules [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#Do_I_have_to_disclose_the_details_of_the_compensation_I_am_receiving?]: disclose my client. And administrators of ru-wiki had confirmed this when I had a discussion about my paid editing. And your personal opinion that all paid edits should be specifically designated - I consider it a your free interpretation of the rules. Kursant504 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom He have edits in article Aliya Moldagulova and some others. It seems he was just correcting articles about women during the Second World War. None of the user's non-deleted edits look like they might have been made for a fee. ·Carn·!? 08:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors must disclose explicitly which contributions are paid. It's not on others to guess which are paid and which are not. MarioGom (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is you again? And why do you decide to remember about me and write here again @MarioGom ? I still didn't agree with you, but I want to ask: how exactly, in your opinion, I must disclose which contributions are paid? Kursant504 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kursant504: Disclosed paid editors usually make a disclosure in their user page including all relevant affiliations and the articles where the paid edits are. The {{Paid}} template is often used for this. On rare occasions, they append an explanation to the edit summary of each paid edit. The edit summary part is rarely needed, because for the vast majority of cases, when someone is paid to edit a given article, it is assumed that all edits from that user to that article are part of the paid deal. So just listing the article in their user page with a clear explanation of the employer, client and any other relevant affiliations is enough. Best, MarioGom (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom it is sound insane. You can show me even 1-2 users anywhere who write on their user page an every paid edit (user`s page will look like a huge set of links do article`s versions)? Listing an article - is a bad way because you may do a paid edits and not. This is obvious. Kursant504 (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They generally do not add every single edit, but a set of page titles. It is unusual for paid editors to do paid and non-paid edits to the same pages. So if they list a title, it is presumed that all edits to that page are paid. Some disclosed paid editors use two accounts instead, one for paid and one for volunteer edits. This also reduces confusion, since they can just say in the paid account "all edits from this account are paid by X". This page's section has a non-exhaustive list of paid editors who comply with these requirements. Each in their own way, but all of them making it clear what they are paid for and by whom (which is required by the Terms of Use). MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just ridiculous: those examples that link on. Let's look at some of them:

1) User:BC1278 - ok, it is a list of organisations. And how another user could understand what edits are paid and which are not? You understand that it could be literally ANY edit in ANY article?

2) User:Philgomes Paid editor say that he it a not paid editor. Nice...

3) User:Koskim Paid editor says that he do edits on pages that interested to him. You understand that It is not a paid edits?

4) User:Levydr Which "some edits"? )))

5) User:MargaretMulvihill Hmmm. And which of edits of this used are paid? I didn't get...

6) I didn't understand something, or I really didn't see which edits of User:Oceans87 were paid?

You first established order in your list of enwiki paid editors, and therefore you already found fault with users who disclosed their paid collection in other language sections (ruwiki). Don't you think this is a more productive approach? Kursant504 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I believed you, that I need to write about every paid edits - I already can't do it for two reasons:

1) at this moment I didn't do a paid edits anymore;

2) I was blocked in ru-wiki and can't write anything even if I want to do that.

If it is intereted you personally - I was made a paid edits in the articles about soviet women (and women who take a part if Great Patriotic War). Mainly by illustrating them. Kursant504 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kursant504. Thank you for your work on Grigory Bakhchivandzhi. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on the article, keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kursant504. Thank you for your work on Eduard Yelyan. User:Nagol0929, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice good article

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Nagol0929}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Nagol0929 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. -Lemonaka‎ 22:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a paid editor. Why do you think so? Also I never did a paid edits at enwiki. Kursant504 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom from Russian Wikipedia have confirmed that you were a paid editor for soviet-related articles, weren't you? -Lemonaka‎ 00:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom from Russian Wikipedia had never confirmed that I was a paid editor for soviet-related articles. Also russain arbcom states that he is only responsible for rissian wikipedia. All other languagies and wiki-projects are out if it's responsibility. Kursant504 (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:PAID is against WP:ToU. Any project can block an undisclosed paid editor without any more rationale unless you disclose them. -Lemonaka‎ 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again "any project"... For example at Commons are not needed to disclose a paid editing. Read the rules. And it is not how rules work. Also I already not a paid editor. But as I see - you can't understand this simple words for some reason... Kursant504 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's that you, not me, need to review the rules. And yes, if you are not a paid editor, appeal to Arbcoms from Russian Wikipedia. Otherwise how can I and other editors believe that you are no longer a paid one? -Lemonaka‎ 22:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also you really can't believe even I will right that I paid user. )) I can make a statement that I make paid edits and the CIA pays me for it. And there's no way you can check it. You won't even be able to demand any proof of this from me. Users are accused of undisclosed paid editing if there are such edits in their contribution or there is evidence of payment exist. Kursant504 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joking, you can make a statement that you didn't make paid edits or didn't have Conflict of interests against some topics, then you can make an appeal to arbcoms on Russian Wikipedia. But no, you dare not do that. You are still sending nonsense here without answering my question, have you paid by Russian Governments to work on Pre-Kremlin point of views? Do you want me to contact Russian or English Arbcoms for your misbehaviours before? You are trying to fool us right? -Lemonaka‎ 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say that I am not being paid for my edits here? Do you

really think that the Russian government would pay me to defend the intellectual property

rights of Ukrainians from obvious theft by users unaware of copyright on Commons? I

guarantee you that the Russian government doesnt care about Ukrainians intellectual

property rights. But I do, because I want to preserve the integrity of Commons, just like I

oppose Russian copyright violations. And do you really think that the Russian

government would pay me to prove that their government organs selling photos are

committing copyfraud the way Getty Images does by charging money to use works

that have recently fallen into the public domain under Russian law (like the photo of Efim

Shadenko that I proved became public domain under Russian law a few years ago but the

Saint Petersburg archives still demand money to use)? Or how about the article I started

about Sergey Varentsov? Do you think the Russian government paid me to write that

one? Wouldnt it make more sense for the Russian government to pay me to not do those

things? Or do you think that the entire Ukrainian government down to Zelenskyi (who

you quote on your own userpage) are all Russian propagandists because they havent

repealed their absurdly long but nevertheless legally binding retroactive copyright laws

and removed themselves from their international copyright treaties like the Berne

Convention? Or is the Berne convention a Russian conspiracy to you? How about the

American Uruguay Round Agreements Act, it that a Russian hoax to you too? Then

again, there is no point in arguing in logic with a person who thinks its trolling to file

deletion nominations on Klimblim colorizations, the most obvious copyright violations

on all of Commons. How dare I point out that noncommercial licenses are not allowed on

Commons. Maybe Jimmy Wales is a Russian propagandist after all, hes the mastermind

behind Commons rules against noncommercial and nonderivative works. Kursant504 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also - you may don't know, but already at april of 2023 I had send request about unblock to Russian Arbcom. It is easy to check if you will go to it's forum and read arbcom's digest were they said for several times that my request is accepted. It is still wasn't published by arbcom because it is not so easy as you may think. As I understand Russian Arbcom has a really a lot of work and them need a time to prepare my request for publication. Kursant504 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka‎, if you are still interested in this case, there was an update: Russian Arbcom rejected request for unblock Kursant504. Siradan (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Yekaterina Zelenko, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 01:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was constructive because the content removed was not supported by any source and the other edits were to comply with the manual of style. Kursant504 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A on that page. -Lemonaka‎ 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kursant504. Thank you for your work on Mikhail Ignatievich Belousov. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded to Kursant504 in recognition of his dilligent and tireless work on the repetitive task of deleting copyright violations from Wikipedia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpectedly and very pleasantly. I am glad that I can continue to make Wikipedia better. Kursant504 (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]