User talk:Kolyvansky

May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=662805342 your edit] to Protectionism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&amp;DocID=1080 "Free Trade Fallacy"], New America Foundation , January 1, 2003.

Adding unsourced, editorializing content
Content in Wikipedia summarizes sources, it doesn't comment on them. What you did here and restored here is not OK.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mitragyna speciosa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright
Your addition to Mitragyna speciosa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Mitragyna speciosa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting citations
Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
 * (ref) (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most - it lets us quickly see if an article is a review or not.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open --  you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom,  and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
 * (ref) (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Last note
A bunch of your changes have been great!! I don't mean to be discouraging. There is a learning curve to working here, especially with regard to content about health. Please just go slow, and talk about stuff. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Again! Please stop reverting, and seek consensus.

Your recent editing history at Mitragyna speciosa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, this edit was to address a concern from 3 days ago that direct quotes were not quoted. Do you even understand 3R? Kolyvansky (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do. Stop reverting or you'll be blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 20:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope someone uncomfortable with citing DEA announcements as science takes a look at what you guys are doing. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please reply in the discussion? --Neil N  talk to me 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In general
If you want to get community feedback on a question, the correct way to do that is to frame a neutral question. I will do this DEA/deaths one for you. You really need to chill a bit and learn how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, I'm Outriggr. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Canada Drugs have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Please stop edit warring to add links to commercial businesses, which moreover are not relevant to the page of one particular defunct business, Canada Drugs. Outriggr (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Regulatory capture
Hi. This is Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to create an encyclopedia, by neutrally summarizing reliable sources. It is not the place for 60k+ screeds based on facebook pages. The accepted practice is WP:BRD, be bold, get reverted and gain consensus on the talk page if others object. I object, based on the policies above. Consider this a formal warning. Kleuske (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Your recent editing history at Canada Drugs 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kleuske (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Canada Drugs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Kleuske (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term spamming. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 11:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Kolyvansky, you should really aim at finding high-quality secondary sources rather than adding commercial links, which in part, serve to advertise the commercial entity in question. El_C 16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read and address the concerns this ANI thread Special:PermanentLink/956629273 -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:RS and WP:EL and it seems the removed links are most appropriate here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmacies#Canada under sub-heading Internet pharmacies like the entry for United Kingdom. Going back to the ANI (my original request for help) I'm the last guy to be "riding an anti-government hobby horse" as Kleuske wrote but will seek more help before reverting. Kolyvansky (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)