User talk:Glebushko0703: Difference between revisions

Line 195: Line 195:

:Just to clarify, “the final warning” indicated that I will not leave any further warnings on their page, “This ”’was”’ your final warning” not “this ”’is”’ your final warning” (as seen on the notice board) as if I warned them again.

:I was not aware that leaving a warning can be interpreted as harassment, in fact the exact reason I left it is to remind them that I’m not willing to engage in the debate with them. I just wanted to hint them to stop saying that “I have something against Estonians”. I do not and I have stated it previously. [[User:Glebushko0703|Gigman]] ([[User talk:Glebushko0703#top|talk]]) 18:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

::You have to learn self-control when you’re under heavy scrutiny, due to your recent block record. If I had a dime for everytime an editor called me a “British unionist”, “Russian propogandist”, “Fascist”, “mentally unfit”, etc etc? I’d be a rich guy. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

== Administrators’ noticeboard incident discussion. ==

Here’s wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Glebushko0703! I see that you’ve already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In one of your recent edits, you cited https://wfneurology.org/private/downloads/aiCLirG2FuedshzLRg_7tw/wn_jun09_row.pdf as your source. I’m getting a 404 error when I try to retrieve it. Deb (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on G. S. Cooper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.cooperline.com/gs-cooper-biography. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia’s copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of automotive artists 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/List of automotive artists 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 until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, myself and @Mr.choppers have reverted a few of your edits to DOY articles relating to car launches and sales. Although the cars may be notable in themselves, these events certainly aren’t. As per WP:EVENTDOY, there has to be a wiki article specifically about the event in order for it to be eligible for inclusion in the Events section of DOY articles. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with this requirement. Please also feel free to reach out for support. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why there are events in this section about related to Ford Model T and VW Beetle?

Cars I added are first of their kind and not less significant then those two.

I think they deserve to be mentioned. Glebushko0703 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Model T and the Beetle are probably the only two cars to merit inclusion. And the Benz Patentwagen, of course. Unless a number of other editors agree with you, you don’t get to make the decisions all by yourself; see WP:BRD. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then give them time to agree with me, instead of deleting all my edits right away. Glebushko0703 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cars introduced in October indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page you can copy over your list there and work on it without fear of deletion. You can also perhaps look at https://automobile.fandom.com/wiki/Autopedia Dream Focus 07:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I prefer this list to stay on wiki, where it would be much easier to find or stumble upon.

I just don’t understand admin logic. Complaining about “significance”, while there are such things as List of sexually active popes

Sometimes I really think contamination of information here depends purely on the mood of admins. Glebushko0703 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admins might delete pages but it’s typically regular editors that tag articles for speedy deletion or AFD deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not listed as a reliable source, and there’s a good reason for that – it takes all its information from Wikipedia articles. You can tell just by looking at it. Deb (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too at first.

But after using the source for a while, I found out that it contains infromation that wiki doesn’t.

So it’s definetely cant take “all” from the Wikipedia.

Also, althrough it’s not always 100% accurate, I saw many DOY pages citating it and nobody undid those changes. Thus I and the other users believe, that source can be trustworthy in most of the cases.

P.S. You undid only my recent edit, that source was used on that and other pages before.

If you are interested in that topic, better start a public discussion on Talk page, my edit hasn’t got much to do with it. Gigman (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the message above doesn’t imply by itself that there are issues, I’m sending it in response to issues. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Restoration and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Build consensus. You may be blocked or topic banned from editing biographies of living persons if you persistently restore disputed content before having found the required consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

ApoieRacional (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gigman (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could head over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions and suggest that you write an op-ed on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heinrich Schultz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valga. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PK (musician), a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Indieadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove all the criticism? Doomnoodles (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the bio in question? Gigman (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Glebushko0703. Thank you. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got yourself indef banned for no reason, happy now? Gigman (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gigman, you shouldn’t have bothered with the WP:Enforcement case. It was already closed as having been opened by a sock puppet. Furthermore, you should apologize for re-contacting @ExRat: over his comment at that Enforcement report, as he’s already asked you to cease contacting him. PS – This is not a “who’s right, who’s wrong” situation. For the time being, you have to show emotional restraint, as it’s you who’s under heavy scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sick of (at this point multiple users) accusing me of racism\propaganda\bias and other nonsense without providing as solid evidence. Warns is the least I can do if administrators don’t do anything. Gigman (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, “the final warning” indicated that I will not leave any further warnings on their page, “This was your final warning” not “this is your final warning” (as seen on the notice board) as if I warned them again.

I was not aware that leaving a warning can be interpreted as harassment, in fact the exact reason I left it is to remind them that I’m not willing to engage in the debate with them. I just wanted to hint them to stop saying that “I have something against Estonians”. I do not and I have stated it previously. Gigman (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have to learn self-control when you’re under heavy scrutiny, due to your recent block record. If I had a dime for everytime an editor called me a “British unionist”, “Russian propogandist”, “Fascist”, “mentally unfit”, etc etc? I’d be a rich guy. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ExRat (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply