User talk:Yelysavet

Welcome!

Hi, Yelysavet. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:El cid, el campeador! Thank you for reviewing my edit in Ukraine --Yelysavet (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of interwiki links?

Why are you removing these? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remove interwiki links if they are on wikidata, or if they are incorrect. In other cases I first add them on wikidata and then remove them from the page here. Is something wrong? --Yelysavet (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. You seem to be removing a lot of links that are not on wikidata, and that aren't obviously wrong. Just one example: Category:English_aviators Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case all links correspond to Category:British aviators, therefore I removed them. --Yelysavet (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a strong reason to start bulk-stripping links! British and English are mostly confused on WP anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add British links to English categories, you can just add {{Interwiki extra}}. For this you don't have to change wikidata items. --Yelysavet (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or Overhead_camshaft I can't read Russian, but I can read French - this is a correct link to the the French wikipedia for that page. Why remove it Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French article correspond to Camshaft. --Yelysavet (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The en:WP article is more specific, as overhead camshaft. French doesn't have a corresponding article as a separate article, it has a relevant section (with the same scope as overhead camshaft) at fr:Arbre à cames#Arbre à cames en tête. Are you planning to remove all iwls that point to a section? Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, now I added on wikidata link on French redirect, thus it is seen in article here. --Yelysavet (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove gv:Ronney:Shliggagh from Category:Sligo (town)? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also on wikidata. --Yelysavet (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yelysavet, you keep removing interwiki-links. And you do this mostly without giving any explanation as to what the advantage of doing so might be.

You argue above that the links you remove from the articles already are on wikidata. This is not exactly true in most cases as those links would show up on the left of the article if there were any equivalent entries on wikidata to the ones you removed.

What you probably mean is that you remove links to articles in other languages if these articles are already linked to different article in the English Wikipedia through Wikidata. But, since Wikidata does not provide any way to link a single article in one language to two separate articles in another language, these articles need to contain the links you keep removing in order to find a corresponding article in other languages. It is not really relevant, if the corresponding articles do not completely match each other. Obviously linked articles in different languages always only match each other to a certain extent.

Construction aggregate, for example, used to link to de:Gesteinskörnung. You apparently removed this link (among many others), because de:Gesteinskörnung already links to Aggregate (composite) on Wikidata.

But the German de:Gesteinskörnung does in fact pertain to both Construction aggregate and Aggregate (composite). So why choose between the two? Why not link all three articles since they all refer to each other.

The possibility to link information is one of the core principles and advantages of Wikipedia. I never understand why editors choose to make it harder for Wikipedia's users to find information relevant to a certain topic by removing wikilinks and interwikilinks.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. KaiKemmann (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has apparently been moved here. KaiKemmann (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KaiKemmann: for such a cases there is {{Interwiki extra}} Yelysavet (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your comment, Yelysavet.

Is this a reply to my statement above?

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Old World warbler does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Your edit eliminated many interwiki links. That might be what you intended for some reason, but you should explain that with an edit summary. Eric ^talk 14:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration note

Note that this is a clear breach of an active arbitration remedy and could see you blocked. It was made quite clear to you at the top of the page that you "are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit", which you have not done. To avoid being blocked you are best advised to revert your reinstatement of the section and discuss the point on the talk page.

(Yes, it's a ridiculous situation, since the edit has nothing to do with the arbitration area being enforced. I objected at the time. But those are the ground rules until they are lifted. This does not change the fact that your edit broke the restriction.) Kahastok talk 17:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yelysavet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yelysavet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic area the Balkans or Eastern Europe

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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) 17:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]