User talk:Yarik222

Welcome!

Hi Yarik222! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Zefr (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

do not delete or edit my text.

Most likely, you have little knowledge of the biology and ethology of bees.

Peer-reviewed journa BeeWorld. It seems strange why you consider him an unreliable source.

Discovery of bee behavior plays an important role. Prior to this, propolis was regarded as a sticky resin at all stages. It is still liquid, and a new direction is emerging in the study of the wetting of grating and mesh materials during its accumulation. Yarik222 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Propolis, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. It is not clear why your addition needs to be included. It does not impress as a significant factor, the source is incomplete, and the work appears to be your own - see WP:COI. If you wish to debate this, you should open a discussion on the talk page to gain the consensus of other editors, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Propolis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Our procedure for resolving disputes is to discuss them on the talk page without warring over article content, WP:WAR. Join the discussion on the talk page to possibly gain WP:CON, and try to provide a review article from a reputable journal for why this information is validated and significant - it does not seem so to me. Zefr (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Propolis. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. This extraction method is not covered in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and does not have establsihed commercial needs or applications. Also, you appear to be promoting your own research, which is WP:OR. Zefr (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You shouldn’t delete text, especially when you’re not familiar with the subject matter. Here is a link to the edited article and the research results: https://animalscience.com.ua/en/journals/tom-12-3-2021/rozrobka-pristroyu-dlya-zboru-propolisu Additionally, the mechanical cleaning of nets plays an important role in the technology of propolis extraction. The use of special nets ensures proper sanitation and hygiene conditions. Until now, these nets were cleaned by hand worldwide, but now there is a mechanical device. It seems like a breakthrough, doesn’t it? Also, here’s another link: https://www.beeculture.com/digital/january-2024/ Check page 84. Moreover, this device is the result of dissertation research. It was also presented at Apimondia in Istanbul in 2022. It seems like it’s worth understanding the matter first. Yarik222 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until an author of a reputable review article calls it a breakthrough, then it might be an encyclopedic topic. Zefr (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Propolis. Here you go again - as in 2022. You prefer edit warring rather than gaining consensus on the talk page and following Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing, WP:SCIRS review. Zefr (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality requirements for propolis are defined by ISO 24381:2023 Bee Propolis — Specifications, which were published in 2023. Why are you deleting a well-known fact? A significant number of years were spent working on this standard. Thousands of comparative analyses were conducted in various laboratories. Are you sure you have the knowledge related to propolis? Yarik222 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what my qualifications or knowledge level are. The encyclopedia exists for the general public, so content and sources must be understandable and sourced to facilitate the general reader's information.

This extraction method does not have clear significance, other than to you and a relatively small number of propolis users or marketers. The case isn't made that this is encyclopedic content with a readily accessed source to show its importance to the general public. Zefr (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Yarik222. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Propolis, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The extraction method appears to be your own work, so if this is true, you have to declare your conflict of interest, and you should not be editing an article where your edits promote your own work. This is both WP:PROMO and WP:COI, if true. Zefr (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make assumptions, and then, based on those assumptions, you remove information about the development of technology in propolis extraction and the standards that ensure its quality.

It seems you have a deliberate interest in limiting people's knowledge about propolis. Perhaps propolis has caused you personal harm, and now you are trying to fight against it? Yarik222 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost two years, and you haven't made any contributions to expanding the article, except for removing information. That seems strange. Yarik222 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No additions have been made because there is no new reputable information supported by a SCIRS review. The article is followed by numerous experienced Wikipedians who can edit anyone's contributions, whether deletions or additions. The talk page is where you'll see editors agreeing on whether to include new content, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]