User talk:Aristeus01
Hi all! Found a bit of time to return to language studies, maybe even a bit of art studies as well. If there's anything you'd like to discuss please leave a message here and I'll reply asap.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Marius Sala (October 10)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marius Sala and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Aristeus01!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
|
- No worries. I see this as valuable feedback on what an article should contain and how it should be referenced. Thank you for your time! Aristeus01 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (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. Thank you. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please see my comment here. There may still be time for you to respond to the complaint and explain why you shouldn't be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston!
- Unfortunately I saw your message to late and the decision was already made. I left a reply at @Black Kite's message detailing my reasoning for this case. Again, apologies I did not reply sooner and please take this message as a sign of my willingness to communicate.
- Thank you for your time! Aristeus01 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)- It seems it is too late to reply (apologies, I had pressing business outside Wikipedia) and argue my case, so please allow me to reply here:
- I will not argue against the block, as I will explain at the end, instead I want to make an appeal to the principles of Wikipedia.
- The situation between myself and the other users mentioned here escalated before my previous warning. I appealed to wiki admins to mediate only to receive a warning myself. If I did not feel I was hounded and I was the disruptor why would I appeal to an admin? I also felt the admin decision then was short sighted but I went with it since I do not want to antagonize people that try to maintain objectivity. But apparently the situation has long gone out of control.
- I took a month to cool of and stopped editing all together. After a month, checking on my contribution log I see the part in question from the article history of Transylvania missing. The discussion span two days and came to the conclusion that "Lavinia wrote a false info" ie the cited author, a reputable archaeologist, doesn't know what she is talking about, but the two editors do. Allow me to shed some light on the fine thinking here: the two users involved support the theory of Romanians immigration to nowadays Romania and often take steps to delete or censor info that contradicts their beliefs.
- This steps include:
- -systematically contradicting and arguing with other editors
- 1
- 2
- -deleting paragraphs that contain information they dislike without taking steps into fixing it or finding other faults that they then present as the real reason for deletion
- by user @gyalu22
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- by @OrionNimrod
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4 - please note here the user that supported deletion of the paragraph in question restored and reinforced the said paragraph while deleting information about demographics, in particular the one supporting Romanian majority
- 5
- 6
- 7
- All this examples are just quick notes from the last 6 months and do not include my edits or talks with the said users.
- -revanchism - OrionNimrod's real reason for deleting the paragraph: "Earlier you removed "Pannonia" as offtopic in another chapter, now you like it???"
- From my point of view their action was disruptive and in bad faith, equalling vandalism but I will not appeal against the block. Being off editing on a Wikipedia that is uncapable of detecting such subtle disruptive behaviours and decides against whistle-blowers is not a tragedy. My action is firmly rooted in the belief the system is being misused by some and the only option I had left given the last incident was WP:IGNORE. However I do not expect admins to jump and take my side, in fact I expect nothing to come out of this since yourself are the second person reasoning against my action in this very "rules are rules" way and "we don't do investigator work". I respect and understand your action, I argue here against a flooded system that keeps failing its principles and users, not against individual admins. Bottom line I consider my action in line with the principles of Wiki and I express my disappointment and frustration at the systems failures that lead so many users to leave and creates a toxic environment. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- As a history student, I used Wikipedia a lot for my projects, but as I kept using it I noticed certain paragraphs would dissapear. What these paragraphs had in common is that the Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees). It appears to me that these paragraphs were removed out of nationalist desire rather than any desire for the betterment of Wikipedia. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hungarian nationalism running rampart on Wikipedia
Hi, I used to use the Wikipedia pages as I study history in university. But as I kept going back to the pages I noticed that often paragraphs would dissapear, often paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees). I looked into this and it seems Wikipedia seems to have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy. Removing sources that disagree with your nationalist version is not NPOV. Paragraphs that fall under WP:NPOVHOW are removed out of nationalist desire.
Is this normal? I assume there's plenty of Wikipedia pages in conflict like Russia-Ukraine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, but NPOV doesn't seem to be enforced here. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)