User talk:Seraphim System

15:19:27, 15 June 2017 review of submission by TooTallSid

• TooTallSid (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dosho Port (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reread all the suggested Wikipedia pages about article creation. I tuned up my refs and citations. I asked "a question on the Articles for creation help desk".. I understand the respond that I got from worldbruce, but it just doesn't seem to fit with the world of American Zen. This is a small world with an internal reputational system different than that espoused by worldbruce. I reviewed a number of related Zen master Wikipedia pages:

• Dainin Katagiri
• Shunryū Suzuki
• Nonin Chowaney
• James Ishmael Ford
• Steve Hagen

They seem to have a comparable level of notability and sources.

Is there no place for American Zen in Wikipedia?

16:19:21, 17 June 2017 review of submission by EditorSTW

• EditorSTW (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Save the Water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I was wondering why you declined the Save the Water (STW) Wikipedia page submission. If you could provide specific reasons, that would be great!

Suraj

Trouted

You've been whacked with a WikiMinnow.. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you might have done something silly.

You got hit with trout god damn it stop wasting your food

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catalan supremacism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan supremacism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Limes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Limes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Hore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Hore. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
467		Nazism and race (talk)	Add sources
32		Erdal İnönü (talk)	Add sources
65		Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany (talk)	Add sources
810		Young Turks (talk)	Add sources
1,022		Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (talk)	Add sources
75		Healthy narcissism (talk)	Add sources
1,997		Great Sphinx of Giza (talk)	Cleanup
27		James L. Gelvin (talk)	Cleanup
9		2015 police raids in Turkey (talk)	Cleanup
262		Economy of the Middle East (talk)	Expand
8		Gültekin Uysal (talk)	Expand
68		Kurdish rebellions in Turkey (talk)	Expand
1,880		United States Environmental Protection Agency (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4,032		Kurdistan (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
131		Dhimmitude (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
268		Kurds in Turkey (talk)	Merge
36		Gods of the Old World (talk)	Merge
43		International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict (talk)	Merge
713		Propaganda in Nazi Germany (talk)	Wikify
76		Iranian folklore (talk)	Wikify
57		Ethnic minorities in Iran (talk)	Wikify
21		Digambara Patra (talk)	Orphan
4		Ahmed Morsi (talk)	Orphan
2		Regulation Focused Psychotherapy for Children (RFP-C) (talk)	Orphan
16		Mithrenes (talk)	Stub
17		Turkish general election, 1987 (talk)	Stub
10		Romanos Melikian (talk)	Stub
10		Evolutionary Anthropology (journal) (talk)	Stub
4		Himantoglossum caprinum (talk)	Stub
9		Reza Khelili Dylami (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

For Hilmar Kaiser, "the Ottoman authorities refused to provide food and water to the victims, increasing the mortality rate", At the Crossroads of Der Zor: Death, Survival, and Humanitarian Resistance, by Hilmar Kaiser, page 24-25.

As for "Muslim men married Armenian women, while the deaths of their husbands were not recorded.", The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide, by Alan Whitehorn, page 155.

Instead of removing information, which you have been doing since 11 October, you could search for information and supporting references. The above information took about 5 minutes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I checked the source that was cited. I can only infer from your answer that it was nowhere in the source that was cited. I was specifically source checking to see if the source used the term "married" because Christian women did not always marry and I wanted to be sure this was correct. What I removed was the language "obtained" which is Orientalist fantasy language about Christian women (usually not written by Christian women or other female writers, who don't describe their experiences this way.) I'm not sure if I need to say more about this, but editors working on this topic should be mindful of representing the experiences of women in a way that is consistent with currently accepted standards in academic writing. In this case I see the text uses the terms "kidnapped" and "involuntary servitude" - this is a sensitive topic, and honestly I think the conduct of the "regular" editors on the article has been abominable.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• "...and honestly I think the conduct of the "regular" editors on the article has been abominable."

Compared to unilaterally removing information instead of using the talk page or finding sources yourself? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

None of the changes I made should have caused this many problems. I have studied Lemkin - it is mentioned twice that he is Polish. The content does need to be better organized, which is what my edit summary said. Did anyone post on my talk page or ask before accusing me of genocide denial. No. The article is poorly organized, it is far too long and parts of it are not well-written. And instead of working to improve it, editors decided they would prefer it if I was blocked for edit warring. And thus, it failed GA review. I think if they had worked with me instead the article would have passed. I think the tone of the reverts speak for themselves, it's plain to see. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

That paragraph is on page "liv" of the book cited.

"Those deportees that survived the death march and reached the Syrian Desert found themselves trapped in a system of camps that stretched along the Euphrates to Der Zor. in the camps, the Ottoman authorities exposed them to contagious diseases like typhus which killed hundreds daily. Refusal to provide water and food increased the high mortality among the emaciated victims. Here as well, Muslims were eager to obtain Armenian women. Authorities registered such marriages but did not record the deathss of the former Armenian husbands."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xCHMFHQRNtYC&pg=PR35#v=onepage&q=liv&f=false Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think we have in the above comments a more detailed source about the women - I wanted to see if obtain was used in the source because it should be in quotes in our article if it is restored. I wasn't able to find it but the sources posted in the above discussion have clearer information - not all of the women were married, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hi. I just wanted to leave you a courtesy notice that I have closed the report concerning Jytdog at AE. You left this comment on the report and I can't see how it is related. I wonder if you made an edit on the wrong page or something? At any rate, it is unlikely to be seen now, so if it is something you feel is important and should be followed up, you will probably have to re-raise it in another forum. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I wil post a link to his talk page some time (this was posted from my mobile) - I hate editing from my phone. I was expressing support for the otcome but EdJohnston had recently been involved in an admin action where he applied the Shrike definition "revert". Because of this recent action on Armenian Genocide I think he should have had a chance to comment. It's important that admins are consistent and follow community consensus about the definition of "revert" (and know what that consensus is). Unfortunately, article development was effectively frozen because of the incorrect definition of "revert". I thought this had been rejected by the community precisely because editors have used it as a tactic of intimidation to freeze article development on controversial topics. Since it has come up again I was hoping this discussion would unambiguously restate the community's consensus, and if there was a mistake here I should receive an apology as well (but that is a separate issue). Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Republic (2017). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oil on troubled waters...

Per WP:TPO, people should not delete other editor's comments on talk pages. Specifically it states "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." And per WP:REDACT, you shouldn't remove your own comments after they've been replied to. If you no longer want the comment to stand, you can strike through your comments, but it's really not a good idea to remove both your own comments plus others' replies to them, as things are happening at Talk:Greece. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I am hatting it not changing it - I asked Dr. K to post sources he mentioned in a revert, he has clearly seen the post and not replied. Since I opened the discussion, I think I can judge when it is closed, and it was a very narrow question to begin with. This editor has serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. I don't see why it is a problem if I close a discussion when it becomes clear that the editor is not going to reply to the question I asked him. There is literally no one else who can tell me what sources Dr. K meant in his edit summary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As for your block - WP:3RR is pretty much a rule that should never be broken without expecting a block. There is no exemption in it for being right. Admins are supposed to apply the 3RR rule without looking at who is "right". Who is "right" should be settled on the talk page. When an editor is reverted, it always always always looks better for that editor to go to the talk page and discuss. Stop thinking of "sides" - worrying about "sides" just makes an editor look like they are here to push a POV or are too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor. Stop worrying about content in the lede of an article, that just makes an editor look like they are here to push a POV. If you really want to edit law topics... there is nothing keeping you from doing so. No other editors are requiring you to go to the topic areas where you're running into edit warring issues. Quite frankly, the more you push the "sides" narrative and the "I was right so the edit warring shouldn't get me blocked" narrative, the more trouble you're going to run into. You've now got a couple of edit warring blocks in your block log - the next time you get into an edit war, admins are going to look at that and its going to be so much easier for them to just decide you were edit warring again and block you longer. You need to drop the idea that if you're reverted, you should revert back. That way just leads to blocks and an eventual indef block for being an edit warrior and battleground editor. Take this advice as well-meant ... I hate seeing people who can have much to contribute get caught up in the edit-warrior mentality and get themselves blocked and frustrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I understand that "being right" is not an excuse for edit warring, but this is not about whether a particular edit was right or wrong, and blocks should be preventative to stop that disruption in the future. The issue here is a pervasive pattern of disruptive behavior and correctly assigning the fault for the disruption, and keeping an eye on possible sock puppetry. I don't know if pulling the area under ARBCOM will help because I don't have the experience of those who have dealt with these things before. From what I have seen it is a small group of "regular editors" with a strong POV combined with the fact that overall participation in the articles is relatively low and the sources fail verification, there are WP:OR problems on the talk pages and in the articles, and sock puppetry in the RfCs which legitimize the WP:OR. Multiple article repeat the same WP:OR. Blocking me to prevent disruption under these circumstances is insane. I think in ARBPIA there is a balance that is maintained by the editors here, and it is an active effort to keep the articles from tilting too much to one side. I just don't have the technical skills or experience to do it. This is probably, if one looks into it, connected to long term abuse problems and is way beyond what I can reasonably be expected to resolve on the talk page or with a 3RR block (which first and foremost should be preventative.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For example Turkish people - it is User:Dr.K. on all these articles from Hellenic languages to Turkish People and others have complained about his POV, he is constantly edit warring with people over preserving the POV in these articles. The articles all have serious problems, I can't pinpoint who is responsible for them, but I am fairly sure anyone trying to fix these mistakes will encounter edit warring to preserve the POV in the article ... for example the claim that Turkish people belong to the "Turkic ethnic group" - "by far the largest ethnic group among the speakers of Turkic languages" - but this is not what Ethnic group means. Well, doesn't the article mention that there are Turkish people who are not "genetically" Turkic - sure: " Several studies concluded that pre-Turkified, pre-Islamized groups are the primary genetic source of the present-day Turks of Turkey (i.e. Turkish people)" - in my opinion this is borderline Scientific racism - which side of that line it falls on I will leave up to you to contemplate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:08, 3 November 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Seraphim_System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

AN3

If you try to reformat the report again you'll be blocked. Add comments, but don't mess with the format or content. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you just make sure my comments are all in one section at the end and that you haven't removed any? This is really ridiculous. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What part of "don't reformat a complaint that is made about you" don't you understand. Add comments, don't try to fix it, and don't expect others to adjust it to your liking. You are inches from a disruption block. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you daft? Adjust it to my liking? The other editor should be told to format his complaints properly, if you can not manage that you should not be an admin. Add to that you actually removed comments that were made. What kind of disruption are you trying to prevent by threatening an editor who is already blocked? Is this how you "prevent disruption"? Blame all of Wikipedia's problems on editors who aren't disruptive/paid and are just simply good editors? I've read about this, so it does not seem to be a problem that is only effecting me.

But it doesn't seem like anything is being done about, even though the problems are well known, clearly identified, documented and attested to by many former editors. And since you are an admin, you should watch your tone. What part do I not understand? We can start with why you think it's ok to talk down to me. Have I done something that made you think that would be ok? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't ever reformat or refactor a complaint about yourself at a noticeboard. You were edit-warring at AN3 to do just that - if you don't see that as a problem, there's nothing I can do to help you. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Block

Drmies

I am going to take a break for a significant time, maybe 6 months to a year. I don't make demands but I won't put time into something like this. I am not edit warring, so this block is not going to change anything that I am doing. You can make that an indefinite block if that is an issue. I hope that admins will follow up on the SPI issues and that more editors will become involved in improving Turkey related content on English Wikipedia, and that Turkey and Wikipedia can have a more cooperative relationship in the future. But this is disrespectful to me, and I don't have any patience for that. As long a basic healthy respect is maintained, I have an infinite amount of patience. I was going to retire permanently but after some nice gestures, I have decided that I will take some time off with the hopes that things will improve in the future. Unless you want to indef me, that is up to you, but I absolutely don't think I am the problem here, I am not being paid, I don't have a political agenda, I don't have sock puppets and I have more respect for myself. And that is not going to change in 60 hours. It is not going to change in 6 months, so that is your call. I will be sending a formal complaint to WMF about this, in writing, because I don't think they actually read their emails. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Seraphim System, I don't know what you're talking about: I am merely responding to an edit warring report; it's pretty clear that you were in fact edit warring, in the article and on the talk page, for which you are now blocked. I'm not sure why you're talking about an indefinite block. I'm also not sure what Turkey has to do with this. I certainly don't have anything to do with Turkey, or with Greece for that matter. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a big problem when admins intervene in ongoing problems and apply 3RR without understanding what is happening in the articles. I did not take the time to find diffs for my complaint about Dr.K. because I did not think it would make a difference if I did. He does not participate in consensus discussions so it is unfair to demand it of other editors, especially because he is consistently uncivil and insulting. That is asking editors to allow themselves to be treated disrespectfully with someone who clearly is not interested in consensus discussions. That much is clear. I am one of the best writers here, my citations are always thorough and precise, I am a law editor (law being a technical area that is not currently active) and I want to do more work there, but the amount of time that I have to spend on things like this means I can't actually get any work done. All my time is spent in consensus discussions over minutiae, that are thinly veiled tactics to stall article development and protect the POV in the articles. This is such a common complaint that we have an article that discusses. I am not the first legitimate editor you have lost. There are areas I want to work on but I won't until as long as the encyclopedia is unable to deal with these biases because it is in many ways a complete product, and it does not feel right to contribute to only one portion of it while it contains these biases. Lastly, I am principled and I am not lying, and yet I am always the one under suspicion. I don't know why that is, but I have other hobbys. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also noting that there is a bizarre and significant difference between the article causing problems here and the Turkish language country article. If you don't understand what's happening in the article then you shouldn't be blocking anyone, 3RR is a rule yes, but it's not the most important issue. And punishing the wrong editor doesn't help when it is a pattern of an editor who is not acting in Good Faith. What is wrong with my hatting a discussion that I started in the first place? Why is that being reverted? Minutiae. Why are UNESCO sites removed from the LEDE? Why is it removed from the LEDE that Paul was born in Tarsus, or that the seven churches of revelations are on the Western Coast of Turkey. The edit summary is "Patmos is not in Turkey" - ok, well I guess it's good that it's not one of the seven churches then. How many hours do you think I should spend discussing that Drmies? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you are blocked, if you want to raise specific content issues in talkpages, post them here or email them to me I'll raise them for you. Just to make it clear, I disagree with either of you... but such block influence on the balance of the articles.

Individuals who have opinions about a subject should not for their own sake edit on those subjects (articles and talkpages)... someone else should proxy for them. This way answers will be cleaned and revert rules will be respected since I don't think a proxy will accept (generally) to be blocked for someone else. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, I don't think that kind of off-wiki proxying is allowed, and I'm not editing anyway, except for removing a few grievous errors and adding the occasional cn tag. I'm not going to discuss anything with a troll account, I'm not going to respond to it so why shouldn't I close it? And I'm not working on a project where admins refuse to call a troll a troll. There exist in the world institutions whose consensus I don't care about - the Texas Criminal Appeals Court is an example of one of those institutions. Their decisions are more persuasive then our consensus discussions. Its the RfA - being able to do maintenance does not make you good at the other things that admins do, but their selection is based almost entirely on COPYVIO and AfD prediction ability. But they are all "admin" accounts so we can judge nothing about their contributions, thus we do not have a balanced representation of viewpoints and it is having a detrimental effect on the entire project. Nobody wants to waste time on a gentleman's court if they aren't one of the gentleman, I already stopped editing at ARBPIA because of it, but I'm not going to volunteer my time to a project that allows editors to be bullied out of certain topic areas that are "guarded" - I've heard complaints from others about Russia, Eastern Europe and Turkey articles so it's not like admins here are unaware of the problem. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ridgefield, Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ridgefield, Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,885		Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (talk)	Add sources
101		Eastern Orthodox Church organization (talk)	Add sources
117		Armenians in Turkey (talk)	Add sources
980		The Master and Margarita (talk)	Add sources
907		Economy of Saudi Arabia (talk)	Add sources
30		President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities (talk)	Add sources
30		History of Eastern Christianity (talk)	Cleanup
51		Varlık Vergisi (talk)	Cleanup
8		Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Canonical (talk)	Cleanup
68		Headscarf rights in Turkey (talk)	Expand
776		Hijab by country (talk)	Expand
74		Dersim rebellion (talk)	Expand
68		Antiochian Greek Christians (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
344		History of the Ottoman Empire during World War I (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32		Racism in Vietnam (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
25		George Sabra (talk)	Merge
64		Islamic dress in Europe (talk)	Merge
153		History of the Jews in Turkey (talk)	Merge
26		National Infrastructure Advisory Council (talk)	Wikify
63		The Out-of-Towners (1999 film) (talk)	Wikify
265		Anatolian languages (talk)	Wikify
51		Slovakia during World War II (talk)	Orphan
6		Edward A. Reynolds West Side High School (talk)	Orphan
6		Namik Haluk Baskinci (talk)	Orphan
7		Democratic Party (Turkey, 1970) (talk)	Stub
22		Kili language (talk)	Stub
43		Homeland Security Advisory Council (talk)	Stub
12		Ptolemaeus of Commagene (talk)	Stub
8		Tatyana Firova (talk)	Stub
14		Yair Auron (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kazakhstan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kazakhstan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

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 the Balkans, 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.

Template:Z33 Khirurg (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg I don't think I have edited any articles in that topic area, which seems to be about Kosovo/Albania/Serbia related articles. I checked the Greek War of Independence talk page before editing to see if it was included, and I did not see any DS warning or notice. If the article is subject to certain restrictions, those should probably be clearly stated on the talk page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC covers everything and anything related to Greece, Greeks, etc...You are on notice. Khirurg (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Putting me "on notice" doesn't help, obvious this area is in need of maintenance. The effected articles should be templated at their talk pages and the editing restrictions should be clearly stated. After reading WP:ARBMAC I still dont know what those editing restrictions are. I agree that DS may be needed, after reading the discussion. Obviously this is a longstanding problem in the topic area, and I am new (to the topic area). Most of the comments seem to echo the complaint that "Greek users can get away with almost anything. The edits speak for themselves as in almost any conflict the Greek side has won." It goes to state that decorum is an important principle of Wikipedia. Depending on how effective is, this may need further community discussion. What are the actual editing restrictions in place for the articles? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on articles. The above template is to notify that there are going to be restrictions on you if you continue behaving disruptively in this topic area. Khirurg (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is how DS work and I am not behaving disruptively. I don't think removing text sandwiches or asking that box quotes be worked into the text as block quotes is behaving disruptively. It is sad to see that you are trying to rope even historical articles into an ever expanding personal conflict where most of the complaints at WP:ARBMAC seem to be about the "Greek side". It would help if there was page protection, discussion and templates so editors could reasonably know what would fall within the sanction area. Obviously if the DS have the effect of making the stated problem in the topic area worse, the community should consider that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway ARBMAC is from 2011, with the recent developments in Greece internally I don't think the community can afford the kind of lenience in the past, as criticism against Greece the Greek far-right has been mounting. But my understanding of ARBMAC is that it relates to present ethnic tensions (Greek neo-nazi party wanting to expel Macedonians, etc.) - I don't think Greek War of Independence is covered under this as it is a conflict with Ottomans, and not between the Balkan states/ethnic groups. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I need your opinion

For the comment I have left in the Armenian genocide article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

apparently what I am doing is called canvassing, I apologize for my ignorance. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is canvassing unless you are trying to manipulate consensus and I don't blame you for wanting to improve the quality of discussion, but I don't think it is the most pressing issue on the article - I was reading it through it yesterday and I saw incorrect dates, weasel words, etc. I think maybe a formal peer review process would help it, if it is ever going to make GA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just bring it (the article) in your userpage and work on it... I will come and give you a hand. Then we'll ask others to join us. I don't think peer review could change anything since there is status quo. If we come up with an alternative, we'll have something to compare the current article with.

I'm not willing to invest that much time into it unless enough editors are involved to really make it worth the time it would take. For example, I consider edit summaries with "huh?" to be a form of disruptive editing - the White Genocide article is about the Armenian Genocide, if an editor doesn't understand why that is in the See Also section, he should not be editing the article, imo. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to invest too much, you may just start by fixing what seems more obvious... and I will continue further. Believe me once you provide an alternative to replace the article with... arguments have to be added to justify why it should not be replaced... then critics will emerge... and we'll simply address them. We may ask uninvolved editors to comment on the it. You can retract when you think it's a waste of time. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have started on my soapbox... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Israel Fund

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Israel Fund. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
5		Battle of Simnitza (talk)	Add sources
577		Cook Partisan Voting Index (talk)	Add sources
956		Messianic Judaism (talk)	Add sources
13		Battle of Nikopol (talk)	Add sources
109		On Crimes and Punishments (talk)	Add sources
28		Hispanicization (talk)	Add sources
10		Celticisation (talk)	Cleanup
12		Lithuanization (talk)	Cleanup
29		Nils Muižnieks (talk)	Cleanup
48		Anti-Orthodoxy (talk)	Expand
380		Battle of Varna (talk)	Expand
9		Index of Jewish history-related articles (talk)	Expand
74		Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
224		Ottoman Greece (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
110		Romani mythology (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
117		History of religion in the Netherlands (talk)	Merge
629		Religion in Israel (talk)	Merge
109		Arabized Berber (talk)	Merge
93		History of the Republic of Macedonia (talk)	Wikify
41		Eugenics in California (talk)	Wikify
71		Napoleon and the Jews (talk)	Wikify
10		Social class in 18th-century Spain (talk)	Orphan
3		Ioanna-Maria Gertsou (talk)	Orphan
3		Prodanza Ballet Academy (talk)	Orphan
9		Battle of Svistov (talk)	Stub
5		Lev L'Achim (talk)	Stub
5		Niš Committee (talk)	Stub
22		Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev (talk)	Stub
10		Battle of Gorni Dubnik (talk)	Stub
97		Pigeonholing (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

By the way, citing a specific policy is fine, but I don't like your references to what "we" do or don't do at Wikipedia. There are users that I would tolerate that from, but not from you. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about this [1], which would be a lot shorter if you'd just said because I said so, and I would that found equally unpersuasive. If Ars Technica is quoting people whose expertise has been seriously questioned, and/or who have viewpoints that are strange compared to the majority of the reliable sourcing, to the extent that it would be undue weight to mention them, then no, of course we're not going to use that source. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE. Geogene (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have to evaluate sources for the statements they are being cited for, if you are following our policies. If you don't understand how citations work or are used when writing Wikipedia articles then you should review WP:CS. Even assuming that Lee questioning Carr's credibility in a blog was grounds for excluding Carr entirely for everything he has every said about cybersecurity, it is disingenuous to rely on Lee for this but not as a source for what he has said in the article. Other editors have raised concerns about the way the RfCs are phrased to exclude sources rather then clearly for whether a particular statement should be included (and discussions about the sources for that statement). This is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, using the word "we" is just an assumption of good faith, which I am obliged to show under our policies. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's where this is going, Seraphim. Once again you are dictating to me how you think Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yet, I don't find you a credible source on how Wikipedia works, at all, and that includes how we evaluate sources. So this is not going to be a productive discussion. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Then stop posting on my talk page. Despite your comingto my talk page to post personal attacks, I am politely referring you to unambiguous policies that you can read for yourself. I'm not interested in becoming more involved in this, but your comments say more about you then me. Good night. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

1RRvio, you should self revert

You broke 1RR with this [2], I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your recent copyedits! Hope you enjoy the virtual cookie. MX (✉ • ✎) 04:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,223		Reaganomics (talk)	Add sources
406		Domestic violence against men (talk)	Add sources
324		E. M. S. Namboodiripad (talk)	Add sources
140		FSO Polonez (talk)	Add sources
10		Ku Klux Klan auxiliaries (talk)	Add sources
187		Ioannis Kapodistrias (talk)	Add sources
242		Hudson, New York (talk)	Cleanup
55		Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (talk)	Cleanup
107		2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (talk)	Cleanup
10,780		Ottoman Empire (talk)	Expand
3		2006 in the Palestinian territories (talk)	Expand
816		Southern Poverty Law Center (talk)	Expand
11		History of Modern Turkish painting (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		Protectorate of missions (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
48		Teen dating violence (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,847		Catalan Republic (2017) (talk)	Merge
738		Camel (cigarette) (talk)	Merge
755		Estates of the realm (talk)	Merge
1,096		Corn starch (talk)	Wikify
895		JTAG (talk)	Wikify
2,468		Linda Sarsour (talk)	Wikify
2		Fred Burns (talk)	Orphan
16		Tara J. Yosso (talk)	Orphan
4		Peter Monroe Hagan (talk)	Orphan
16		IAE Paris (talk)	Stub
258		Meow (talk)	Stub
58		Louis Beam (talk)	Stub
189		Hamstringing (talk)	Stub
715		Grand Wizard (talk)	Stub
16		Daniel Ammann (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Seraphim System, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continent

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continent. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Seraphim System. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I would love to, but I have a couple of recent edit war blocks, so I think I have to wait a few months. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Was not aware. Try to keep it chilly mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh yeah, one of them was for restoring an NPOV template and citation needed tags that I had added, not sure what other solution there is for a situation like that. It should probably be added to 3RR exceptions, because I have seen it happen to other editors before and it is stupid every time it happens. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

23 Nov 2017 Undone changes to 'Christianity and Violence' page by Manubhatt3

Hi,

Why are you asking for sources for such obvious content? Do you really think that Gandhi was exclusively influenced by New Testament in his principle for Nonviolence? You can read the wikipedia page on 'Ahimsa' and Gandhi itself. This information is so obvious, it doesn't even merit a debate. Ahimsa(nonviolence) is a whole concept/philosophy in Indian Religions. Regarding Jain influence, one other place I learned about it was the UCLA lectures on Gandhi by Vinay Lal.