User talk:Glebushko0703

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:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• 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) 17:39, 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

Happy New Year!

Glebushko0703,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:08, 2 January 2026 (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

Per the discussion about your unban request, your community ban is hereby vacated. It is replaced with a topic ban from the Baltic states, broadly construed. I strongly encourage you to carefully read WP:TBAN and WP:BROAD. If you have even the slightest inkling of a doubt that an edit you are about to make might violate your topic ban, do not make the edit. You are on very, very thin ice here. People coming back from a community ban are fairly rare. If you stray but a little, it's likely the community ban will be emplaced again, and coming back from a second one will be nigh on impossible. Further, the concerns raised at the original discussion to have you banned must be taken into account. Carefully read that discussion again. Even if you never touch a Baltic state article or anything related to it again, but nevertheless engage in the behaviors called out in that discussion, it's likely you will be community banned again. You've been given a second chance. Don't blow it. If you have any questions about this, ask me. I'll be happy to answer. Also; the topic ban is indefinite in nature. That doesn't mean it can't be appealed. It can be. But, I would strongly advise against appealing it before six months have passed. Personally, I just would stay away from the topic Baltic states permanently. But, if you're heavily motivated to get back to editing that subject, I would wait at least a year and demonstrate you can contribute to this community without causing disruption. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Olympic Stadium (Moscow) has been removed in whole or in part because it contained copyrighted material without a compatible license. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to release your work under compatible licenses. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted text or images without a verified compatible license, and all copyright violations will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but you must write using your own words. Limited copying with context is allowed, but requires special care. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Glebushko0703. Thank you for your work on Yekaterininskiy Park. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NGEO. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mariamnei: I've published the template but got distracted. Now I'm working on the translation of the page. I will update it tomorrow (or in few days) and provide all the necessary information and citations. Gigman (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

That sounds great! Thank you! Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 08:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by Glebushko0703. Le Loy (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The following restriction now applies to you:

Logged warning to refrain from WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in relation to topics involving Russia

You have been restricted pursuant to the recent ANI discussion

As an uninvolved administrator, I have imposed this restriction under the contentious topic designation at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe. You may appeal this action using the applicable appeal process. Please contact me if anything above is unclear to you. ~~~~

Given your acknowledgment at the end of the discussion, I think downgrading my suggested sanction from a TBAN to a logged warning is appropriate. I'll add informally, that the general expectation, for editors in general but especially for those who have been previously banned, is that the lions' share of your time and edits should be spent on mainspace work (and discussions immediately related to it in Talk, etc.), not on patrolling the drama boards. I'd recommend only participating at ANI when a case directly involves you or editing disputes you are a party to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rosguill The reason I decided to get involved (besides Tyler's personal attacks) is a similar situation where another user with whom I had a "conflict of interests" before, recently participated in discussion regarding my edit dispute with a different user, acting as a sole proposer and advocate for sanction there for over a week , not considering other user's reasoning (including OP's) and not editing anything else at that time nor before for 11 days . As he received no warning for this, I thought I'm eligible to participate in this kind of discussions as well, otherwise it would've seemed unfair. Gigman (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply