Quintessentquirk

August 2021

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, They, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Dmitry Borisovich Volkov, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Manticore 04:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of that pertitent information. Did you actually read the links? I don't think you did. I'm a former science researcher, and I did. This is a talk page. Let's discuss this like civilised adults please. There are *plenty* of persistent, consistent accusations against AnastasiaDate, which Dmitry controls. AnastasiaDate and related dating.com sites have an opaque business structure. There appears to be a war edit on the page about Anastasia Date. Would you like one here too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AnastasiaDate#edit_war_about_Slater_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.244 (talk • contribs)

I assume that this is your account and that you are not currently logged in, which is why you have engaged in this discussion. You are correct, I did not review the links posted to that article talk page. YouTube videos and self-published websites and forums are not considered reliable sources. I'm sure as a former science researcher, you recognise that yourself. I would encourage you to find more reliable sources to substantiate your claims, and to use article talk pages to discuss the articles themselves, rather than to publish your personal opinions. — Manticore 05:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time. Too long. Mr Volkov is attempting to distance himself from both AnastasiaDate and SOL Networks because they both have a very poor reputation. He likes to maintain a very opaque business structure. At the moment, the English page is stable. But it is only a matter of time until one of Volkov's henchmen edit the page back to the way it was (i.e. not mentioning AnastasiaDate, SOL networks or the ICIJ offshore leaks database).

Is "The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists" a reliable enough source for you?

Because that information was just reverted on the Russian version of the page about Dmitry Borisovich Volkov (and of course they banned my IP address). New information has surfaced; all I did was add the truth. Please go and check for yourself. Why was that information reverted if it is true?

Also, the last edit I did about AnastasiaDate was undone by someone in Russia. And it has happened before. The company has its base in Malta, and changes were reverted by someone with an IP address in Malta. No surprises there.

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/200-women-in-a-few-hours.640007

https://www.google.com/search?q=SOL+Networks+Limited+Malta+google+review

https://www.complaints board.com/anastasiadatecom-b120788

https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/AnastasiaDate-Reviews-E420728.htm

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=16263.200

https://www.amazon.com.au/Love-Time-Algorithms-Technology-Meeting-ebook/dp/B008EKMDWG

(there is a whole rather negative account of AnastasiaDate in one chapter of this book and obviously they don't want that mentioned or referenced anywhere)

Now granted those might not be reliable sources, that's why they are here in the talk page and not in the actual page about Dmitry Volkov. It is not my problem if this has not been sufficiently covered by the international press (meaning newspapers and news websites). Now who is most responsible for these consistent/persistent allegations? Dmitry, that's who. It's his company and it has been for some time. There is/was talk of a class action against AnastasiaDate, unfortunately many men do not wish to come forward because there is a stigma attached to being the victim of a Russian bride scam.

Mr Volkov can't have it both ways. If he's going to run the world's largest cluster of dating-scam websites, then he should at least maintain a much lower profile. This is an attempt to make Dmitry more accountable for the thousands of men that he has defrauded over the years. If something is not as it appears to be, then it is at the very least false advertising. It's ongoing deception, systematic fraud, and that is something Volkov is going to have to answer for (sooner or later). Does Mr Volkov really think he can go on tricking and fooling thousands of engineers and scientists? Does he really think that he'll be able to hide forever? Eventually it's all going to catch up with him. I ask you this: do you actually want to contribute to the proliferation of a Russian mafia-style organisation? Or not? Because that is literally what we are dealing with here.

I may not be a good editor, I may not know how wikipedia works, but I do know how to do research and investigate. Time will show you are wrong about Mr Volkov. I am prepared to learn more about how wikipedia works in order to get certain accurate information to stick. Lastly, I am editing this at great personal risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.244 (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

wow, it appears someone did not like my recent wikipedia edits because I am now unable to access literally THE ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.244 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, for this diff--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quintessentquirk and OR at Maria Zakharova

I have opened a topic about your editing at ANI. Please respond there if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

These are facts:

On 16 February 2022, Zakharova requested on her facebook and telegram channels that mass media from the US and Britain Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Sun, etc, for them to announce the schedule of Russian invasions for the coming year because she'd like to plan her vacation. Eight days later, on the 24th of February 2022, thousands of Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Zakharova was personally sanctioned by the EU after the decision by Putin several days earlier to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine as independent entities. The EU council listed her as "a central figure of the government propaganda" and also noted that she "promoted the deployment of Russian forces in Ukraine.". Quintessentquirk (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, likely fabrications.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the following is factual information

On 16 February 2022, Zakharova requested on her facebook and telegram channels that mass media from the US and Britain Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Sun, etc, for them to announce the schedule of Russian invasions for the coming year because she'd like to plan her vacation. Eight days later, on the 24th of February 2022, thousands of Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Zakharova was personally sanctioned by the EU after the decision by Putin several days earlier to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine as independent entities. The EU council listed her as "a central figure of the government propaganda" and also noted that she "promoted the deployment of Russian forces in Ukraine.".

I don't care who you are, but it's going to appear one way or the other. If not here, then I'll make a personal blog post about it and/or a youtube video about it. But this has happened, and it's not acceptable that you have blocked me for this edit. Now quite frankly I don't care if you hold platinum wikipedia keys, you're wrong. There is just no way that Maria Zakharova can maintain a wikipedia page that casts her in an entirely postitive light after her recent press briefings.

Quintessentquirk (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no such thing as "unbiased", as everyone has biases. You are, of course, free to post whatever you wish on your own blog or social media(subject to the rules of the host). That's where your thoughts or original research should go. Here on Wikipedia, we summarize what independent reliable sources specifically state about a topic. Furthermore, Maria Zakharova does not maintain anything here. Wikipedia has an article about her. She is free to propose edits to it, but does not have control over what it says about her and she does not own it. As this does not convince me that you understand the reason for the block, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2022 (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.

References

Well, Quintessentquirk, at least the WP:POINT'y disruption is less crass than your Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova is an ugly witch, putin's propaganda puppet. She must resign from a month ago. Personally, I think she's a terrible person, but that doesn't really diminish from you continuing to make subpar edits concerning her, at the cost of Wikipedia's reputation.

Obviously, she said it ('vacation plans') in a mocking way. Yet you cite two primary, non-English sources for it for some odd reason (entirely not needed), but you cite 6 (six) sources for the invasion itself (entirely not needed). What? Why?

Anyway, maybe YouTube or a blog would be a better avenue for you to express your views, because my sense is that your WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS impulse is actually working against your own position here. Because, ironically, presenting the facts correctly and in context actually makes her look a lot worse than in your confusing, poorly-sourced addition. Something to consider. El_C 10:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)