User talk:Shustov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Shustov, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy changing! SS(Kay) 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do my best! Shustov (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're also this person, right? You've done very well in making those new articles, just remember that this Wikipedia is for people who don't understand English very well, and try to write for them :). The links I've given above should help. Cheers, SS(Kay) 04:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is me. I do understand the mission of your Wikipedia: I am simple too! Thanks again! Shustov (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that you do. But please, be careful with words like "addressing", "provisions", "jurisdiction", "adaptation", etc. Your articles are full of such jargon. Please try to keep your articles within the basic wordlist, and if you have to use a bigger word, link it like this: [[wikt:hardword|]], so that it links to a definition. Thank you. SS(Kay) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
What about now? Shustov (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You are being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard of Wikipedia. Cheers. --Diego let's talk 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shustov (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Concepción[change source]

I've moved your new article to there, because I believe that is the correct name, yes? If it's not, feel free to undo my change. Thanks. SS(Kay) 08:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's O.K. Shustov (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Stretching[change source]

Could you consider simplifying the article that you created stretching, perhaps with some words from Basic English? Right now, it seems very complicated. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try. Shustov (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your user page typo[change source]

You have the Simple English WikipediA on your user page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? Shustov (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Service Award[change source]

This editor is an Apprentice Editor and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Picture Book.

Congratulations, you have earned a Picture Book! I like the motto on your user page - be better! I shall. Peterdownunder (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! Shustov (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification[change source]

A thread discussing you was started at WP:ANI#Shustov (talk · contribs. Kansan (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[change source]

Hello, please do not add links to websites with which you are associated, as this presents a conflict of interest and is not allowed. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Block[change source]

I have blocked you indefinitely for self-promotion, external link spamming (YouTube is not considered a reliable source), edit warring without discussion, continuing the same editing patterns that got you blocked on enWP, and using the one chance given to you under the blocking policy. If you wish to appeal, use the {{unblock}} template. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Green check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I believe you had good intentions for the project, but a misunderstanding of the rules. Reread WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV and I think we can let you edit. This is a chance, take it. Addition of spam will result in an indef block with little chance of an appeal. Ask if you need help and ASK if in doubt.

Request handled by: fr33kman 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

fr33kman 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Ok, I think this has been sitting long enough. I don't want to just handle this myself as I think there is obviously some controversy. Let's just have a quick discussion who is against unblock and who is for unblock so we can get this closed. I support the block, but would be willing to work with a topic ban on earthquakes.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban on earthquakes and a restriction from adding external links to websites. Kansan (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm not imposing a topic ban here, as self promotion and spam links are not subject to such a ban imo. This is just straight second chance. fr33kman 00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 Diego Grez let's talk 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to all above Users for resolving the issue to the benefits of Simple Wikipedia. Shustov (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning[change source]

When writing Conflict of interest, you added text that was not simple enough, and also directly misrepresenting Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Please do not make changes solely to demonstrate a point, as this is disruptive and may result in a block. sonia 08:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sonia: You removed the portion of Conflict of interest which, on 5 March 2011, looked like this:
"In Wikipedia projects, editing in the area in which an editor has professional or academic expertise may, under certain conditions, constitute a Conflict of interests which, if proved, is strongly discouraged."
At the same time, since 4 July 2009 through 5 March 2011, there has been in existence the following statement in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:
"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."
Due to foregoing, please explain what particular "misrepresenting Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline", making "changes solely to demonstrate a point", or "disruptive" behavior on my part you discovered in the article?
Again, during the day of 5 March 2011, all of a sudden (?!), you performed three drastic edits of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest including rewriting even its nutshell without any discussion on the talk page to make sure that other editors agree with your big changes. What for? Just to demonstrate your point? Anyway, this matter should be better discussed there. Shustov (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, what the mainspace article says and what the WP namespace page says do not have to jive. Wikipedia is NOT a RS for itself!!! No one is a reliable source about themselves, there is alway bias. Secondly, Sonia does NOT need to talk about changes to a policy page prior to editing it. If we/someone disagreed we can revert and then discuss it on the talk page. I'd advise you to take some time off and think about COI in-depth. I'm one of those who always says that just because a COI can occur, does not mean it will occur. However, you seem to have problems with determining where the grey areas exist and where they do not. You've been given a 2nd chance (ny me), let's now call it a 1.5th(?) chance now. Talk about things if you are unsure how an edit will be met. A lot of people didn't want you unblocked! Good luck and let me know if I can help! :) fr33kman 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you, fr33kman for helping me with COI recently. By the way, I am really going to avoid, at least for a while, coming even close to the "grey area". However, I want to make Simple English Wikipedia better based on my own first hand experience and, in particular, in that topic. Therefore, I created a small, simple and neutral Conflict of interest a few days ago. Now, I need your advice on the following:
  1. May I restore the sentence below in the above article: "In Wikipedia projects, editing in the area in which an editor has professional or academic expertise may, under certain conditions, constitute a Conflict of interests which, if proved, is strongly discouraged."?
  2. Based on the fact that since 4 July 2009 through 5 March 2011, there has been no editing of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, while since 3 March through 5 March 2011, we had nine (9) edits there and some of them appear to be rather controversial, is it a good idea to post on the talk page there an invitation for discussion?
Shustov (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for that major delay in responding. That sentence sounds fine to me, and it's always acceptable to post to a talk page firstly. fr33kman 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Final warning[change source]

Earthquake engineering is the main article for Tsunami warning system? Stop advertising that article all over the wiki. This is your final warning before I take this to an appropriate noticeboard. Goodvac (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are the previous warnings? What advertising you are talking about? Shustov (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a warning in the section just above.
I meant advertising not in the regular sense of promoting a corporation, but plastering links to Earthquake engineering—an article where you have a history of spam—all over the wiki. Goodvac (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Goodvac: If you insist on your offensive spam allegations, we may discuss it separately but read Spamming first. Prior to talking about the main article for Tsunami warning system, look into Earthquake engineering, please (I hope you have not vandalized it to the full extent yet). There, you may find that one of the main objectives of earthquake engineering is: to "foresee the potential consequences of strong earthquakes or tsunami on building structures". Due to this, Earthquake engineering should be in control of Tsunami warning system which, unfortunately, did not happen in the case of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Station. And the last but not least: if you still believe the tsunami is not a primary concern for Earthquake engineering, use the Talk page to discover the other Users' opinions there. Shustov (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down please guys, it's really not a big deal, and certainly not something to be making a final warning over. Whilst perhaps incorrect, I am confident that Shustov's addition of the "main article" template to the relevant articles was made in good faith, and is certainly not grounds for any warnings to be made on account of spamming. His previous block was for adding external links to his own products, and this has not re-occurred since the unblock.
However, that does not mean that you, Shustov, can be as confrontational as you have been in your explanation, and you should try to be calmer and more polite with other editors, as civility is also grounds for blocking. If you're having trouble with an editor, there's many ways to get assistance on the wiki.
Either way: please cut out the bickering as there really isn't an issue. Adding links where relevant (And I believe the majority are) is not against wiki policy, and as such no violation has occurred, and there are definitely no grounds for either a final warning nor any warning - nor, indeed, for this to be "taken to an appropriate noticeboard".
Thanks,
Goblin 11:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

I apologise; there was a misunderstanding on both ends. I misconstrued Shustov's use of {{main}} as spam, while Shustov misunderstood the purpose of the template. If {{main}} is placed on another page, it means that the present page does not go into enough depth and the "main article" has more information. For example, does earthquake engineering contain more information about tsunami warning system? Of course not, earthquake engineering is merely an umbrella term encompassing several types of systems and methods.
Another way to look at it is this: {{main}} is always placed in a section. For example, see United States#History. There it links to the main article History of the United States. {{main}} placed at the top of a page makes no sense, since if an article is about X, there shouldn't be another article about X that goes into further detail. Anything about X should go in X. I hope that makes sense.
Shustov, please be more careful when you add {{main}} to articles and make sure the "main article" is relevant. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries Goodvac. Certainly makes sense to me, but then again I already know about the usage of the template so that might be why lol. Glad everything's resolved amicably. :) Goblin 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

STOP SPAMMING THIS PAGE WITH "FINAL WARNING"s LIKE ENTITLED ABOVE[change source]

Please, do not do it again! Shustov (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Messages like this, however, do not particularly help your case. If there's a problem, seek to resolve it. Goblin 11:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!!

I have no problems as so far, thanks! Shustov (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@Goodvac: please stop pasting warning on this user's talk page. If you have an issue, seek an administrator! fr33kman 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries Shustov, if you do feel free to grab myself or one of the administrators and we'll do our best to help. :-) Goblin 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

You bet I will, Bluegoblin. Appreciate! Shustov (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll help, by placing the problem on Simple's AN/I. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 05:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has not been going on for nearly a week. It is not helpful to bring it up again unless it becomes an issue. Kansan (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Few things[change source]

First, when writing an article such as building code, please keep in mind there is more to the world of structures than earthquake engineering. Also keep in mind that just because an article has the word "earthquake" in it somewhere does not mean it belongs in the earthquake engineering category. Also, this is the Simple English wiki, so please make more effort to use simple English when writing articles.

There's "However, for the very pliant systems such as base isolated structures, with a relatively low bearing stiffness but with a high damping, the so-called "damping force" may turn out the main pushing force at a strong earthquake. This finding created a theoretical ground in earthquake engineering for a damping-disengaged base isolation technology called Earthquake protector." at the earthquake protector article. Try to think of how unreadable that would be to someone with only basic English skills, and see if you can simplify that text. Some guy (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you show me any article in Simple English WikipediA written by yourself which I may "keep in mind" as a good example, please? Thanks! Shustov (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you've used Wikipedia significantly, which I know you have, you are already aware of how to observe a user's edit history. I suspect your response is a failed attempt at Tu quoque, which is a logical fallacy anyway, but you should be perfectly capable of recognizing and correcting problems in your overly complex language on the Simple English wiki. If you are for some reason not capable of writing in simpler English, you probably should not be writing articles on this wiki, as it causes considerable work for others to have to rewrite everything you've written to better conform to Simple English standards. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I requested an example, not mentoring. Be a good guy if you can! Shustov (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to run errands for you. You aren't new, you've had multiple warnings, and at this point it is your responsibility to do the research to learn how you should be writing your articles. Some guy (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a research and found out that your articles Dogfighter, Starfighter, Shotgun shell and Star Wars: Jedi Knight (series) could give you absolutely no credit to teach neither me nor anybody else. Sorry!! Shustov (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant response there. I'm amused that you are attempting to resort to ad hominem attacks after I already called you out on that. If you have specific issues with my admittedly stubbish articles, feel free to address them on the talk pages, but the meaningless insults are inappropriate. Some guy (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Shustov, stop reverting Some guy's good faith additions to Building code. Your edit summaries in those changes were: "Undid revision 2738057 by Some guy (talk) Do not do it again, please!" and "Undid revision 2738053 by Some guy (talk) Try to learn first!". These tell others, especially Some guy, absolutely nothing about your objections. Just because you have perceived flaws in Some guy's content creation does not mean that every edit he makes in areas you edit ought to be reverted. Goodvac (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Shustov, I admit I'm not an expert on building code but I have basic knowledge on the subject and I verified the information on regular English wikipedia before adding it, so I'm confident there were no factual errors. The fact that you reverted my edits leaves me with only two possible interpretations: either you don't have any knowledge of building code beyond earthquake engineering, or you are intentionally being disruptive. Please explain yourself. Some guy (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Goodvac: To my opinion, your words "Some guy's good faith additions to Building code" are a polite exaggeration. Unfortunately, Some guy is, obviously, avoiding a civilized discussion. Just look at his statement above: "I'm not going to run errands for you." (?!) Of course, I may explain the reasons for my mentioned reverting if anybody, really, need them. Shustov (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I refused to perform a basic task for you that you were capable of doing yourself, because I assume you are not a child and I am not helping to raise you. That is completely different than having a conversation. The fact that you have not responded to my last two comments, along with your withholding the reason for your reversion, shows that you are absolutely avoiding a civilized discussion. Would you prefer ANI? Some guy (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the timestamps, you will find that these edits at building code preceded the initiation of this discussion. Hence, Some guy is making an effort to discuss (contrary to your allegation of his "avoiding a civilized discussion"), but you are hindering him by arguing ad hominem.
And yes, please enlighten me with the reasoning behind your reverts. Goodvac (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Some guy, I will definitely respond. But not immediately, sorry! Shustov (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Building code editing by some guy[change source]

Situation. Between March 24 and July 10, 2010, User:Shustov created a new article Building code. At 22:37, 3 April 2011 and 22:44, 3 April 2011, User:Some guy modified the article. After that, at 23:10, 3 April 2011, User:Some guy rebuked User:Shustov on User:Shustov’s Talk page for been not capable… see better his quotation below:

"If you are for some reason not capable of writing in simpler English, you probably should not be writing articles on this wiki, as it causes considerable work for others to have to rewrite everything you've written to better conform to Simple English standards. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)."

On the User:Goodvac request, here please find the basic reasons why the User:Some guy edit should be reverted.

1. User:Some guy addition "Building codes are usually created by the government, who may inspect buildings to make sure they follow the rules" is incorrect; see, e.g., International Building Code.

2. User:Some guy addition "There will be rules about making the building safe during disasters, such as fires, earthquakes, and tornadoes" leaves some questions like: when "will be rules"?; on the other hand, "making the building safe during disasters" is a way too late: it should be done yet on the design stage.

3. User:Some guy addition "The building code may be very different depending on where the building is and what it is used for" is dead wrong: it is not the Building code, it is its requirements which may vary for the variety of standardized situations.

4. User:Some guy addition of the new section called "Earthquakes" is very misleading: as far as I know, none of the Building codes contains provisions for Earthquakes which are in jurisdiction of the God.

Due to foregoing, the User:Some guy edit should be reverted. Shustov (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh huh. For one thing, that bit you quoted from me has nothing to do with the rest of this section, unless you're bitter.
  1. I should have used the phrasing "created or enforced"; see [1] specifically: "In some countries building codes are developed by the government agencies or quasi-governmental standards organizations and then enforced across the country by the central government", " The developers of model codes urge public authorities to reference model codes in their laws, ordinances, regulations, and administrative orders. When referenced in any of these legal instruments, a particular model code becomes law", "There are instances when some local jurisdictions choose to develop their own building codes." In all of these cases, the codes are created or enforced by the government. Notice I used the word "usually" which suggests there are cases where the government is not involved. Also notice I used the general word "government" rather than specifying a specific level, so this can apply to city, state, or national government.
  2. There's nothing wrong with the phrasing "will be", this is an acceptable gramatical format. See en.wikipedia again, "Fire code rules to ensure safe evacuation in the event of a fire. Requirements for earthquake, hurricane, tornado, flood, and tsunami resistance, especially in disaster prone areas or for very large buildings where a failure would be catastrophic". Building code is applied during the design stage so I'm not sure what your problem with it there is
  3. That's just being nitpicky over wording; a building code will have "requirements for specific building uses (for example, storage of flammable substances, or housing a large number of people)". You could rephrase "the building code to "the rules from the code applied to the building"
  4. You made the entire article about earthquake engineering, as if this was all that is covered by building code. Again you're being picky over wording; at worst this would require no more than a rename of the section header, unless you want to delete all the content you wrote about earthquake engineering.
You're being absurdly overly specific and picky about very minor wording problems. The correct procedure when coming across a wording problem is to fix the bad wording, not delete all the content. You had created a much more misleading article implying there is nothing more to building code than earthquake engineering, which is far worse than any minor flaws in my wording. Some guy (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution to both this and the above thread is, quite simply, BOLD, revert, discuss. That doesn't appear to have happened yet - remember, it's a wiki that anyone can edit. Goblin 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

My suggestion[change source]

1. Some guy immediately stop using expressions like:

• "You're being absurdly overly specific…", or
• "You had created a much more misleading article implying there is nothing more to building code than earthquake engineering…" (?!)

2. Some guy provides at least a minimal information about his education (both general and special), licensing and experience in the Building code related area in order to make it easier for me to communicate with him on this matter.

3. Some guy (or any other bold User) restores the article to its 'prehistoric' state as of July 10, 2010 until this discussion is over.

Shustov (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why we would stop him from saying those things. I think he is being critical of the article and the edits on it in an attempt to make it better, which is a good thing. If he was making negative comments on editors, it's a personal attack, but he is being critical of the edits, not the editors. We also cannot force users to tell us any info about themselves, including their education, unless they want to. I would suggest not reverting it, and working with what is there to make a good article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Shustov, I have both explained and improved my content to eliminate wording problems. You have again failed to address specific issues with the content or comment on my changes. My qualifications are totally irrelevant; Wikipedia does not require qualifications to write on a subject, provided the content is decent. Others can always improve on the content. Trying to question my qualifications is again a ad hominem attack which does nothing to support your side of the debate (at this point I strongly suggest you read up on ad hominem because you've resorted to it three times).
The article only discussed earthquake engineering and seismic loads. This gave the implicit idea that building code was entirely for this purpose.
It is my belief you are specifically trying to distract from the actual content of the discussion by making these demands. I am not going to refrain from critiquing your logic because that will make it impossible to have a discussion. At this point you have repeatedly stalled, made unreasonable demands which are not your right to make, and generally been very difficult to work with. Please try to work more cooperatively and openly discuss any specific issues you have with the content.
SOOGIIW.png


Some guy (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked[change source]

I have blocked you from editing the Simple English Wikipedia. This is for your general disruption1, of the project, being uncivil and unkind, violating WP:OWN2, biting newcomers3,4 and not being able to agree consensus with other editors; for which I need no diff, but just would point you to your talk page. This is for an indefinite period of time. On a more personal note, I feel a bit let down, given "Thanks to you, fr33kman for helping me with COI recently. By the way, I am really going to avoid, at least for a while, coming even close to the "grey area"." I unblocked you on good faith and since that statement you have done little else than cross the "grey area" and abuse other editors. fr33kman 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all this should amount to a block. The first diff is just a request for a third opinion; nothing untoward there. I agree with the own concerns, but the biting newcomers part is not correct. I don't consider myself a newcomer, nor do I think Some guy does. [2] Goodvac (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I, ah, am not opposed to a block. It seems like he has a longstanding pattern of similar behavior. I don't consider myself a newcomer, but if Shustov does, the spirit of the action is the same. Like if you beat up a Polynesian cuz you thought he was black, it's not like "oh no, he wasn't actually black, so you're good to go." Some guy (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input but the block stands. He's not a newcomer either, so there's no excuse. fr33kman 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse for what??? Shustov (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the above issues I blocked you for. fr33kman 05:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not your day, sorry[change source]

I mean you, fr33kman. By blocking me, you disrupted the legitimate discussion in progress with Some guy. And what will Simple Wiki look like without discussions? – Right, it will be just Simple N. Korea. Is it your goal?

During the discussion, I was seeking opinions of third parties and, first of all, for that of Goodvac who, apparently, supervised it. Then, I received the opinions of Gordonrox24 and Goblin and acted in full compliance with all their advices. I have also never given up my commitment "to avoid … coming even close to the "grey area"." Thus, if you remember, after your invitation to let you know if I need help, I asked for your advice on whether I may restore the sentence below in the article Conflict of interest: "In Wikipedia projects, editing in the area in which an editor has professional or academic expertise may, under certain conditions, constitute a Conflict of interests which, if proved, is strongly discouraged."? After receiving your response “That sentence sounds fine to me, and it's always acceptable to post to a talk page firstly” on 21 March 2011, I performed the corresponding edit on 5 April 2011.

By the way, the subject of our discussion was Building code which editing should be performed with especial accuracy due the extraordinary sensitivity of the matter. It is now clear that some gaps in the Japanese building code requirements and their enforcement might be responsible for the disaster at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Station. By the way, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in US is built to withstand only a magnitude 7.0 earthquake which is 100 times less than the earthquake that destroyed Fukushima I Nuclear Power Station in Japan. The geological fault that may initiate a tsunami and threaten the plant lies about 5 miles offshore. It is a serious challenge, no kidding!

Let's get out of this mess together! Shustov (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say we had a "legitimate discussion". Did you notice all my complaints about your behavior? Anyway, I probably shouldn't continue this, so I'll leave off. Some guy (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason.

Request reason: "I have found neither a slightest violation on my part nor any alleged proof of such violation. This block looks like a mere reprisal (please, see above). Shustov (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "I think you calling this block a reprisal is enough to make me say the block stands. Fr33kman was kind enough to assume good faith and unblock you before, and now you say he is blocking you as a reprisal? I really don't think that is fair. I think that the fact there are two warnings, and an image showing you how to interact with others posted on this page above shows you have trouble discussing with others and trying to reach consensus on changes. Above, users have tried to tell you that there is more involved with building codes that just earthquakes, however in your last post you are still only concerned with how earthquakes are shown on that page. I think this, once again, shows you are unable to work with other people to gain consensus when building articles, as does the link Fr33kman posted above. Yes, earthquakes are very important, but you need to be able to work with others, so our articles can cover many topics, and not just earthquakes. A big part of Wikipedia is working together to make pages, and we must be willing to focus on more than one topic in an article about something as complex as building codes. Maybe you can come back later and show us you can work well with others to write pages, but for now, it is a no.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)"

No proof of Block legitimacy yet[change source]

Be honest, Gordonrox24: I have never called "this block a reprisal". Instead, I said: "This block looks like a mere reprisal" which is a B-I-G difference! In this regard, I think Fr33kman needs neither your protection nor that from Goodvac who reverted the amendment to Conflict of interest [3] which was authorized by Fr33kman at 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You’d better defend your own opinions, namely:

1. Graffiti. Why you insist that the above graffiti by Some guy posted at 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC) is a valid proof of my "… trouble discussing with others and trying to reach consensus on changes"? Would you tolerate anything of this kind to happen on your own Talk page? I do not think so. Anyway, I did not say a word on this obvious act of impudent spamming of my Talk page!

2. Discrepancy. Your statement "… you are unable to work with other people to gain consensus when building articles" does not mate with this one: "I have both explained and improved my content to eliminate wording problems" which was made by Some guy at 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC). Since that posting, there was no attempts on my part to compromise my willingness to reach consensus in the discussion.

3. Only 27 from 263. Your allegation that "… users have tried to tell you that there is more involved with building codes that just earthquakes ... Yes, earthquakes are very important, but you need to be able to work with others, so our articles can cover many topics, and not just earthquakes" does not hold water either. If you compare my (original) version of Building code with the "improved one" by Some guy, you will discover more earthquake staff (even a new section called "Earthquakes") inthe "improved version". Seismic examples in the original version of the article were provided just for example (there is no prohibition for the further expanding it any time!). To verify that my articles "cover many topics, and not just earthquakes", please look into User:Shustov: of the total number of 263 articles that I edited in Simple English Wikipedia (about one hundred of them were originated by me and the majority of them were, apparently, approved by other editors!), only 27 might be considered earthquakes related.

4. Who is biting whom? On 3 April 2011 (UTC), Some guy, after getting tired of "improving" a few of my articles, wrote: "If you are for some reason not capable of writing in simpler English, you probably should not be writing articles on this wiki, as it causes considerable work for others to have to rewrite everything you've written to better conform to Simple English standards." (?!) By the way, these are the words of the editor who does not understand that his edit "There will be rules about making the building safe during disasters, …" with the use of Future tense is very confusing.

5. Mission accomplished. "I probably shouldn't continue this, so I'll leave off" - notified us Some guy at 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC), soon after fr33kman decided to block my account. Good job!!

On the ground of the foregoing, I believe the above decision to block me should be reverted. Shustov (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you didn't say it was a reprisal, you said you think it is a reprisal... I still don't think that is fair, as it seems like pretty much the same to me. I think the "Graffiti" is proof of the difficulty you have discussing with others as it even had to be posted. If users didn't have trouble trying to discuss with you nobody would go to such extremes to try and help you understand. If somebody were to post an image on my page to try and help me understand how something works, I'd be more than happy. In fact, I've even done it to myself! I don't understand your 2nd point. How does me telling you that it looks like you have trouble working with others and User:Some guy saying he is trying to work on the article by removing working problems create any discrepancy? In my post, I'm commenting on your editing behaviors, not those of User:Some guy. Comparing the two diffs, your original building code page and the second one after revisions by User:Some guy, all that has been done is that the information on earthquakes has been moved to a separate section. No more information about earthquakes has been added. That is a good edit, as the information has been put into a correct section. The last two points don't concern your block, they just concern User:Some guy. When I read what he wrote, I see a person who is trying to help, but it getting tired of trying to build articles with somebody who doesn't work well with others, and when he says he shouldn't continue this, he is being smart and not creating more trouble for himself. As I said, this is your unblock, not User:Some guy's, so I don't see how anything he has said is an excuse for any of your actions, or an argument for your unblock. I stand by the block, and another admins is free to review it as well, if they wish.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Gordonrox24, you are repeatedly not accurate in quoting me. I, really, wrote: "This block looks like a mere reprisal" which means I assumed that fr33kman just made a non-intentional error because he was, most likely, provoked and/or misinformed by somebody who was dreaming to impose a block on me. There are a lot of such people, you know all of them. Therefore, in the same response of 20:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC), I invited fr33kman: "Let's get out of this mess together!"

Again, your statement that the graffiti posted on my Talk page by my opponent "is proof of the difficulty you (which means "me"– S.) have discussing with others as it even had to be posted" (?!) is beyond my understanding, but should I be blocked for this?

You also wrote: "Comparing … your original building code page and the second one after revisions by User:Some guy, all that has been done is that the information on earthquakes has been moved to a separate section. … That is a good edit, as the information has been put into a correct section." If all you said above is true, why should you accuse me of some earthquake topic addiction? By the way, do you have any proof that, in the process of editing Building code, I had ever argued or taken any other actions against the "good edit" by User:Some guy? In this regard, what is my fault here?

Your last statement "The last two points don't concern your block, they just concern User:Some guy" is not correct either. Actually, those two points concern the blockmongers who just used User:Some guy as a sock puppet to create an image of cruel and illiterate User:Shustov bulling an innocent newcomer.

Shustov (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misquoting you, that isn't my intention. I am merely stating how I interpreted what you said. I thought my point about the "graffiti" was clear. If there wasn't an issue with the way you were communicating and discussing with others, then there would be no reason to have posted the picture. You did take action on the edit by User:Some guy reverting him. The second sentence prior to User:Some guy's edit was "Any building code has either some minimum prescriptive requirements for seismic loads". This, as well as your edit pattern in your previous block, shows that you edit seemingly with only earthquakes in mind. Calling the good users here blockmongers does not help your case in the slightest.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


The image was not intended to be "graffiti", but rather a lighthearted example of friendly behavior in order to break the tension. I put the same "graffiti" on my own user page because I think it's cute and has a good message. Some guy (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you, Some guy, and have no doubt that if we have not been interrupted all of a sudden "from above", we would end up quite peacefully. Best! Shustov (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Explosion protection[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Explosion protection, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Template:Explosion protection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

New timebox userbox[change source]

Hi, all. This notice is being placed at WP:Simple talk and on user talk pages of people transcluding {{User:Gwib/timebox}}.

I have built an updated timebox userbox. It is built from {{User:Gwib/timebox}}, but has some expanded functionality. You can find this userbox at {{User timebox2}}.

StevenJ81 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)