User talk:Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin

Evan McMullin

Better for America is not a political party. It is the same as Citizens United (organization). JC · Talk · Contributions 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Guiletheme (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guiletheme: Thanks for the help! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Image will be Deleted Comment

I will add a tag to delete it. Don't change it! It will be deleted shortly Eteethan(talk) 21:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eteethan:, thank-you so much!

Warning

You have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you may be blocked. This is your first formal warning. 75.172.182.59 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN US Presidential page

Hi Yuri, I wanted to remind you that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article [US presidential election, 2016], must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I noticed that you made two reversions in the last hour alone. Please revert yourself.--TM 11:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, though. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with the removal of Castle et al., the edit you reverted was not vandalism. If you are confused about what vandalism is according to Wikipedia's standards, please see WP:VANDAL. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at United States presidential election, 2016.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCoop: I make three tiny edits and you act like my "disruptive editing" is destroying Wikipedia. Those logos have been on Wikipedia for AGES now and you act like they've been put up SO recently that they need to be checked for copyright infringement. You say I may be blocked from Wikipedia for doing these tiny little things, yet there are people out there blanking entire pages that need to be told to stop a million times before they're temporarily banned for 5 seconds. Go yell at those people instead of me.

What's copyright infringement-y about the stuff below?

TRIGGER WARNING FOR CONTENT BELOW FOR ANYBODY READING THIS WHO IS ANTI-THIRD PARTY!!!

P.-s., why don't you care about the Green Party's logo?

Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you went to those file pages and looked under "Licensing" or any similar section title, you would see that they're copyrighted. As for the Green Party logo, it is in public domain. It doesn't matter how long a file is on Wikimedia. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe copyrighted content can go under fair-use. Right? @JayCoop: Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion in talk pages

Hi Yuri. Thank you for notifying me of the Nader issue in the 2000 election. Just a quick note on how to use talk pages in general. It's expected that new discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. You're pretty new in here so it's normal that you do not know all the conventions. If you ever have a question, leave me a message. Cheers :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Abjiklam: Yeah, I'm still not sure how this work here. But, thanks! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to United States presidential election, 2016. Jim1138 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138:, woah! Hold on! What blanking-out did I cause? I changed a low-quality picture to a high-quality picture! That's it! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim can you explain the warning? Seems a bit harsh to use such a high level warning on a new editor who I'm pretty sure is acting on good faith. @Yuri: Don't make edits to attract the attention of other editors. That's not how it works. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin, per Abjiklam's request: You changed an image on United States presidential election, 2016 that explicitly asked you to discuss any image changes before doing so.. I see you have done this twice since. See wp:BRD. BTW: The warning was the incremental scaling of warnings by wp:Huggle. You seem to have a good grasp of undoing other edits. Perhaps you should look into wp:civility, wp:consensus, and wp:edit warring. It would appear that the article has a wp:1RR revert limit. Jim1138 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I advise you to read the further information at the top of the article talk page and I suggest you undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin, I came here to give you the same warning that SPECIFICO has posted above. If you want to alter the ballot access language, please first inquire on the talk page to gauge support for your changes. Do not continue to blindly revert. SPECIFICO might have been the fastest to disagree with you, but I suspect that others will as well - and I know that I dislike your blanket changes. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing here is that, if your edits are reverted, do not reinstate them. Instead, go to the talk page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party candidates with electoral votes

Hello. The rule for candidates appearing in the infobox is that they have to have achieved 5% of the vote or won electoral votes. Faithless electors are not votes which have been won by the candidate, as the vote would have been won by another candidate and the elector pledged to the candidate who won the vote decided to turn faithless. Thunderstone99 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Replaceable fair use File:TomHoeflingWhiteBackground.png

Thanks for uploading File:TomHoeflingWhiteBackground.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Orphaned non-free image File:TomHoeflingWhiteBackground.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TomHoeflingWhiteBackground.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=2oczE7SODTUnF5j_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_74yo0hjqXxSzG8l&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Porteclefs: Survey complete. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]