User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

Block
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 ? 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 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
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.

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
Khirurg (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

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, 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, 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)

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.

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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ASeraphim_System 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 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

 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manubhatt3 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For WP:V under our policy, you must add sources. Wikipedia is not a source and your college lectures are not a source. Attempting to use Wikipedia or what your professor told you as a source predictably results in sanctions if repeated often enough, so my friendly advice is to learn from this and read the policy carefully. Under WP:V you can not restore unsourced material that was removed without adding a source for it. You can try adding unsourced material if you think it will not be challenged, but in practice you can expect most unsourced adds to be promptly reverted. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think mkgandhi.org is not a reliable source? Please give reason, before undoing my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manubhatt3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:V. If you have more questions, you can ask at WP:RS/N. Don't edit war. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Will this be good enough for you?:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/nonviolence.shtml

Manubhatt3 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Or this:- https://books.google.co.in/books?id=lmJnWrjnfjMC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=gandhi+and+ahimsa&source=bl&ots=VZkhDAMgKZ&sig=ffsSCOE4dxiV8ZwUE8msb8UY94A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_otn20tXXAhXBNY8KHeFzBIA4KBDoAQhdMAk#v=onepage&q=gandhi%20and%20ahimsa&f=false

Manubhatt3 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Or this:-

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gadadhara-pandit-dasa/martin-luther-king-jr-and_3_b_4631610.html

Manubhatt3 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the book's contributors and their academic credentials, it looks fine. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ireland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Source you added
It appears that Kadir I. Natho, Circassian History is a self-published source(Xlibris). Considering that Natho is not a historian, you may want to find another source for that information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I am planning to update the source for it. I did some research on it and I haven't been able to find many cites to Natho, (a few, but not many). I have a stronger OUP source I am reading that I hope will discuss the uprisings, I plan to follow that source when updating the section. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can revert back for now if you want. But the unsourced version does have a couple of errors - there were some refugees from the Russian Civil War, but there wasn't much Circassian emigration to the Empire in the war years (According to the OUP source I am reading.) Details are kind of scanty, so I want to read as much as I can before revising anyway. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about the information, just the source. And, I'm not in a big hurry for you to find a source. Just giving you a heads up, was all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Albion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of areas of London
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of areas of London. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 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.

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) 12:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 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) 04:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.


 * Here is the disruptive edit:


 * You've been on Wikipedia for long enough that you should know better than to do stuff like this. If you can't contribute constructively to this topic, than I suggest you find other areas to edit. OtterAM (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a disruptive edit. It's based on Oren Yiftachel work, not only an expert source but an Israeli expert source. Please don't template my talk page with bullsit, you've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should know WP:JDL is not a justification for removal. I believe that you think it was disruptive, so I will AGF and not take it as a personal attack. Now that you know why it was added, please self-revert. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit was extremely POV and clearly not the consensus version of the page. By the way, it wasn't me who reverted your edit, someone ELSE did immediately after you made the edit. I just thought you should be cautioned not to make disruptive edits like this. OtterAM (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a See Also link that was added like, a month ago. I didn't even notice it had been reverted. It's a minority view that was added as a see also link, that is completely WP:NPOV. The edit was unambiguously non-disruptive based on an expert scholarly source about Israel's form of government and the fact that you are repeating the accusation after I have provided the source is not really a good sign. Please don't post on my talk page anymore. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fatima
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi friend
Since you're good with things related with law... how do you find my proposition here. :b Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to add that neutrals get the king of pikes, the supports the queen of hearts, etc... but maybe they don't have my sense of humor. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have only been here a year and in that time I have not really interacted with ARBCOM, beyond a couple of proposals in topic areas I edit in. I generally support transparency, and I believe the Stewards review the votes, but I don't think they are going to tell us more then that. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They're throwing all the neutral votes in the trash can. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that that is a weird way to count votes, but I don't know why they do this. I think in the end they are only tallying support votes, so I don't know why Oppose and Neutral would be different options. Maybe if they subtract one for each oppose, then it would make sense, but I don't know. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But either way it doesn't even make sense. In a real election canceled votes are rejected because intentions (under the imposed guidelines) can not be determined. How can an explicit neutral vote be compared with a canceled vote? It's like literally throwing votes away. Given all those new systems like Holacracy which can be implemented easily in the cyberspace... even democracy is outdated, but here not even democracy is served. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll see what their reply will be, if there is one. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read through abstention, or at least the lead. A neutral/abstaining vote is only counted for quorum purposes - in other words, if a membership body has 100 people and you need a minimum of 50 people to cast a yes/no vote, if 51 people abstain/cast a neutral vote, then you do not have quorum and the measure is not "officially" counted.
 * In the ArbCom elections this does not matter, because there is no way to effectively gauge a "quorum". Additionally, the system uses radio buttons to show all of the candidates, which means that even the candidates a user doesn't care about will be shown; thus, we would need a "neutral" option to avoid voters randomly choosing "support" or "oppose".
 * As for the results themselves - a candidate needs to get +50% of the votes, hence the $$ \left ( \frac{\text{Support}}{\text{Support + Oppose}} \right)$$ calculation - it's not just about how many support votes one gets, but rather the overall approval of a candidate. In theory someone could get a million supports but still not be elected if two million people opposed.
 * Good questions, though, hope I answered them. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

But abstention implies no vote at all, as shown in that first paragraph. Those who chose neutral did vote! They emitted an opinion about a member.

Usually in an election, all the candidates are there, you choose one. Either that vote is canceled or accepted if there is no abstention. Here your votes for a candidate could be counted as void (if neutral) while your supports and opposes for another candidate are counted in. Unless I have missed something, this seems arbitrary to me. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In every real-world election I have participated in, there has been a ballot with all of the names of the various candidates printed. Some offices I voted for a person, some I left blank. These latter "votes" were essentially "neutral" votes and did not count towards the final tally.
 * So too do we have a similar situation at ACE - a list of all of the candidates with options to select which ones you like (or dislike). Since we use radio buttons to input the values, there must be a "neutral" option for all of the candidates. If I only wanted to positively vote for a single person, there's no way to say "I only want to cast a ballot for User:Example and ignore the rest" other than by having a neutral vote. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, but in which real life situation the population can choose for each candidates individually without having all the votes of that same person either canceled, accepted or counted as abstention all at once? Do you mean you were in such a situation? (was it a private company?) Usually when this happens, it’s not to decide between candidates for the same position. What is an ACE? (is it related to Wikipedia?)


 * Besides, in what judicial system, federal judges are decided on the open by the population? Even juries aren’t! Don’t you think there are reasons why?


 * I proposed a way here to remove systemic bias from any form of election. It takes in account the result of the whole election. Each group is removed from what history has recorded as evil for that group. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ACE is short for Arbitration Committee Elections (technically it's ACE2017 but I was feeling lazy). I'm rather surprised that your proposal hasn't gotten any feedback, but then again you proposed it after the "community input" phase of the election process. Maybe you can suggest it again next year? Primefac (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fatima
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 December 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.

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) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pentecost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Redemption ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pentecost check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pentecost?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 20:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Million-plus agglomerations in India
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Million-plus agglomerations in India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Istvaeonic languages
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Istvaeonic languages. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Useful idiot
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Useful idiot. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017: AE
Please see thread at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding your editing.Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert E. Lee
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert E. Lee. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 December 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.

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) 12:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)