User talk:Seraphim System



This is a fork. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Why I was blocked
The types of errors I fixed were not bad, they were egregious. Do not ever use this encyclopedia in the real world if you don't want to look foolish and ignorant because anyone with knowledge of the topic will wonder how you became such an idiot. Our article on death march said for 10 years "The signing of the Fourth Geneva Convention declared death marches a form of war crime". Really, the fourth convention "declared" that did it? Death marches are not a war crime in and of themselves. There has been a major prosecution for death marches of soldiers under the first three conventions, and then it was prosecuted as a failure of a commander to control troops. The Fourth Convention is only about civilians. It was fixed by a wonderful editor who I am accused of being a sock puppet of. I have no good faith left for this project.

I hear a lot "Others are improving the encyclopedia too, not just you" but I am the only editor active in many of the areas I work in. Maybe readers would rather read my content then yours, but that is not something our "consensus" process will ever reflect. The only reason Wikipedia will never be "finished" is because of COI.

Established editors are sitting on their butts, edit warring, and ranting on talk pages about how they have been here for 10 years when they are the ones who should be helping to untangle their own work. They dump it and leave it and then insist they have to "approve" any changes, which is more of a burden then a help. Most of the articles need to be reduced in size, not expanded. They need to be organized coherently so they are readable from start to finish. They need to be reformatted to follow basic principles about white space and paragraph structure. Out of FIVE MILLION articles, probably fewer then 1000 are readable from start to finish. It is never going to happen through the dysfunctional procedures that masquerade as a consensus around here (usually sock puppets who are arguing with each other). A group of dedicated people should really fork and clean this up into a publishable, reliable encyclopedia. I can't take anymore, tl:dr, bye. Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You were blocked because you asked to be blocked, and then you created at least 50 CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet accounts to avoid scrutiny of your editing (Sockpuppet investigations/Seraphim System). This ideological rant does not seem to have anything to do with addressing the reasons for your block, so I am revoking your talk page access. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seraphim System, I can't tell you how disappointed I am. I worked with you, not always agreeing with you but still, and now this. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I must have missed this; wiki-politics makes me sad. I don't really understand the context of your remarks above, although I apologize if I have contributed to the number of unreadable articles. I keep doing my best to explain things as clearly as possible, while being neutral and nuanced ... and I wondered why you weren't alsopinged to Talk:Alan Sabrosky, and I guess this is why. Which is a pity. As I say, I don't know the context, and maybe leaving is best for you. But I'm sorry we've apparently lost you. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Welp
Thats sad. Seraphim had done so much but came down to this.. Also i see Drmies quite literally everwhere i go. is he like some super-admin? maybe one day i can become so active that you can't avoid seeing my contributions. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Seraphim System! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criminal case law end
Template:Criminal case law end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians involved with Mathematische Annalen has been nominated for deletion
Category:Mathematicians involved with Mathematische Annalen has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Armenian terrorism


A tag has been placed on Category:Armenian terrorism 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 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk  15:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Armenian terrorism


A tag has been placed on Category:Armenian terrorism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sumanuil 07:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Correction needed
Hello Seraphim System. I am uncertain what was intended and so I have attempted to correct one of your templates ("Fee"). I have seen someone notify you that you are unable to edit your own Talk: therefore perhaps you can't respond here. If you are able to your help would be useful. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)