User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
08:58:24, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Olgach11
Dear Seraphim System,
Isaak Chertok was my great uncle who died in 1964. I have created this Wiki page in his memory. I did my best to collect all the possible information about him using his archive, memories about him, books he translated and buildings he built. I thought that a chief engineer of GosTorg building in Moscow, an architect of the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo and a translator of Chekhov stories has enough right to have a page in Wikipedia.
I can not find any more references "to show the subject notability". Please reconsider your decision to decline my submission.
Sincerely,
Olga Chertok
Olgach11 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Olgach11: Unfortunately we don't allow memorial pages on Wikipedia. We need independent secondary sources to establish notability. Has his translation of Chekov been discussed in any scholarly or academic book reviews, or significant publications? Seraphim System (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
11:23:10, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Olgach11
Hi. I have added some information to Reference 3 about Chekhov translation. This is as much as I can add at the moment.
Olgach11 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Olgach11: It would have to be from independent sources, not the introduction of the book - we need several independent secondary sources to establish notability. Book reviews from significant publications would be a good start. Seraphim System (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit Summary
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Conservatism in the United States does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: Yes, I know what an edit summary is, it was obviously a mistake - was it really necessary to leave a template over this? Seraphim System (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- My attempt was not as an offense, but a gentle reminder.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @RightCowLeftCoast: Seraphim system probably counts as a regular by now :) so a truly 'gentle' reminder would have been written in your own fist, sans template. IMHO of course. Happy editing! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I sometimes forget to note the tags in an edit summary, will try to remember. Can you please add quotes for the sources you posted? Seraphim System (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- No where in WP:VER does it say that quotes are required.
- Also, another reminder. Please remember to add an edit summary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- They're not required, I'm asking for them. Please stop posting reminders on my page to add edit summaries. Seraphim System (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: TigerSwan has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Seraphim System (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Please comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
14:36:20, 31 May 2017 review of submission by Lauren at Chloe + Isabel
Hello! I requested a re-review for this because I believed I had re-wrote the article to be very neutral, and non-biased. I simply wrote a few sentences based on factual evidence that I backed up with sources that were not related or written by anyone who would have bias. I would love to know which words I can specifically change to make this article be approved, and which words made it sound like an advertisement. It would really help! Thank you very much!
Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Lauren
- @Lauren at Chloe + Isabel: For example
CEO and Founder Chantel Waterbury began her journey at the age of 13
- "began her journey" is not what we would consider encyclopedic, neutral language - it sounds promotional. But I also don't see enough sources to establish notability - I don't think this article can be approved without multiple sources that establish notability, but I will let another editor review the resubmission — maybe they will have different advice. Seraphim System (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Winnipeg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winnipeg. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 05:04:08, 1 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Reginazhou2017
I have edited my draft and re-submitted. Wikipedia says I need reliable and independent references, I consider a newspaper cutting of the era as such. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry is also to provide accurate facts? And since I didn't collect the data myself, I consider this a secondary source. A primary source is when data is collected originally for instance data from an original survey.
Reviewer also mentioned sections needed to be provided. I have provided headings which I take to be sections.
This is not a complaint but I have been trying my best to work on the feedback provided by the wikipedia team but I have seen many pages that have been published with no issues or no ones bothers to review them. There are hardly any reliable references and the tone of the articles also read like essays. So I wonder why my draft gets so much flake. Reginazhou2017 (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Reginazhou2017: This article was declined for being essay-like. It seems from your comment that you are confused about why it was declined (twice). The article has a clear and identifiable POV - it has a pro-left slant. It is structured (a) (b) (c), one of the sections is titled "Clampdown on trade union leaders" - it is not written in the style that Wikipedia articles are written, which is different from essays or term papers. Wikipedia articles are written from WP:NPOV. We would generally say that editors should summarize what the sources say. When writing an essay, you would look for sources that support your argument, but that is not how Wikipedia articles should be written. For Wikipedia, it is better to start with the sources. The last paragraph, for example, highlights quotes that support the thesis of the left as an anti-colonial movement, which runs through the entire article. Without significant revision, I think it will be turned down again. Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 18:59:22, 1 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lauren at Chloe + Isabel
Thank you very much for your response on the Chloe + Isabel review! I will adjust it based on your advice.
Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Lauren
Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Ruth Catlow page
hi, on 23 may you declined the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruth_Catlow for notability and references. during the last week there has been quite a bit of work done on the page, & the author has resubmitted it for review. it now has 32 references, including Wired Magazine, Tate Museum, & The Guardian as well as many other reputable conferences, websites & so on. i believe that this is sufficient documented evidence of the subject's notability & respectfully ask that you accept this page. thanks. Frock (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hopefully some fresh eyes will help clear things up. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Opps
Sorry about this revert I was trying to see who was online after commenting at the noticeboard discussion and accidentally reverted, Have since self-reverted but wanted to make it clear it was an accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
RFAR withdrawn
The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 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. Thank you.
3RR block
You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: How am I supposed to "try to reach consensus" with someone who says he doesn't need sources. Show me what policy obligates me to "reach consensus" with someone about unsourced assertions? Since when is adding unsourced material not vandalism? I don't see how this is going to be preventative. Let's say I waited, and then reverted again tomorrow. And then it just went back and forth for months, and he still refused to post sources. What difference would that make? Unless you are willing to call it what it is, vandalism, this block won't prevent anything—it will just drag it out in the name of the precious 3RR rule. Even if I revert once a day, what's does it help, if he just continues to revert back to an unsourced version? Obviously we can't have a consensus discussion—there are no sources. Maybe we should have an RfC, to see if we can agree as a community that 50 really means 50, or that "Not in Exodus" really means "Not in Exodus" — it really isn't a content dispute. The only thing that would be "preventive" would be admins addressing the behavioral issues that cause these problems. No sources, no discussion. It was true the first time I said it, and it is still going to be true tomorrow. Seraphim System (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism (please stop calling it that), it's a content dispute; the other version does have sources attached. You gain consensus by bringing more editors into the dispute: you launch an RFC or get a 3rd opinion or any other Dispute resolution option—but just edit warring by yourself is unproductive. El_C 02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I know we can't expect admins to actually read things, but do you see how the source is a deliberate miscite? Because I do. Either it's deliberate, or it's such gross incompetence that the editor needs intensive mentoring from someone who knows how to read. So what should I call it—fradulent referencing? Fine, if you think we should have an RfC about whether or not a source that doesn't say "Easter inclusive" says "Easter inclusive" then I will do that next time. I think it's stupid, but sure, if that's how you all want to run Wikipedia, who am I to argue. Maybe it will be effective, though I'm concerned we might be able to reach consensus that a giraffe is a zebra. Seraphim System (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you're going to be passive-aggressive, I'm just going to leave you to your own devices. El_C 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I know we can't expect admins to actually read things, but do you see how the source is a deliberate miscite? Because I do. Either it's deliberate, or it's such gross incompetence that the editor needs intensive mentoring from someone who knows how to read. So what should I call it—fradulent referencing? Fine, if you think we should have an RfC about whether or not a source that doesn't say "Easter inclusive" says "Easter inclusive" then I will do that next time. I think it's stupid, but sure, if that's how you all want to run Wikipedia, who am I to argue. Maybe it will be effective, though I'm concerned we might be able to reach consensus that a giraffe is a zebra. Seraphim System (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism (please stop calling it that), it's a content dispute; the other version does have sources attached. You gain consensus by bringing more editors into the dispute: you launch an RFC or get a 3rd opinion or any other Dispute resolution option—but just edit warring by yourself is unproductive. El_C 02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
13:42:08, 8 June 2017 review of submission by LucyClapham
- LucyClapham (talk · contribs)
Please may you tell me what I need to do to get this article accepted? Thank you
@LucyClapham: We need independent secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH — please review the requirements of the specific notability guideline. Under WP:NSCHOOL, it must pass either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Basically, we need sufficient sources from independent mainstream publications such as books or press reports and these should not be routine or passing mentions, but should discuss the subject in some depth. One of the things I am supposed to consider is what the likely outcome will be if the article is nominated for deletion after being created. This is discussed more in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD.
I see you have a section called headlines with links outside Wikipedia. This is basically not allowed. Please read WP:REFHELP for help on how to reference articles, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. WP:TEAHOUSE is also a good place to ask questions. Seraphim System (talk) 14:41, 8 June 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) 23:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
21:03:42, 11 June 2017 review of submission by PTSaputo
I have tried to address your comments. Could you help me to understand the issues you have raised?
PTSaputo (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@PTSaputo: One issue I noticed right away is NPOV—I think our editors will object to this kind of language God's sovereignty has natural limitations and self-imposed limitations so that God may have the power, but choose not to act.[4]. "Ultimately God is in complete control of all things, though He may choose to let certain events happen according to natural laws which He has ordained.
this is more something you would read in a religious tract then an encyclopedia. Another example is God is sovereign Lord of all by an incontestable right; God is the creator, owner and possessor of heaven and earth
—I have scholarly theological encyclopedias that I use like International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and their tone is considerably more muted then this. This sounds more like a sermon then a Wikipedia article, and this is one of the major things to avoid when writing articles about religion for Wikipedia. This type of language is always promptly revised by our editors. There are also still a lot of primary sources inline without secondary source commentary. You would need a commentary or scholarly source that says "Well verse so and so discusses the doctrine known as the sovreignty of god, its significance is such and such." Seraphim System (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Your explanation is helpful. The purpose of the article is to discuss the doctrine of God's sovereignty; the basic premise of the article is that there is a sovereign God. The article then discusses the issues presented by the doctrine. So the article is written from the view that there is a creator who is sovereign. Yet, I do understand what you are writing - the existence of a sovereign god is not a fact and it was not my intent to present any argument for or against the existence of god. Would it help to state: "The premise of the doctrine is the claim that God is "sovereign Lord of all by an incontestable right [as the] creator . . . owner and possessor of heaven and earth."? I did make this change in the overview paragraph. Any thoughts would be appreciated. PTSaputo (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Defeating ISIS
Can you put it on hold and let me address your helpful suggestions? Sagecandor (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor: Sure. Seraphim System (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very good recommendations! I agree with all of them and tried my best so far to make changes, and I feel that, thanks to you, the article looks much better now. Perhaps you can have another look at Talk:Defeating ISIS/GA1 ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Can you please change your review box thingy at the top of the review to note that you believe all criteria save one are resolved please? Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very good recommendations! I agree with all of them and tried my best so far to make changes, and I feel that, thanks to you, the article looks much better now. Perhaps you can have another look at Talk:Defeating ISIS/GA1 ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please close the review as failed. I'd rather not have more of this interaction. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please close the review now. And please don't review any other nominations of mine. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop future interactions about GA Reviews. Especially when you make up non-existent criteria about your requirement that articles-must-be-X-number-of-time-old. Especially mine. Please don't review my nominations again. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Listed at GA
FYI I went ahead and listed this at Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion since you passed it. Thanks for working with me on the review. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Did I forget to do that? I thought Legobot listed automatically when I added the topic to the GA template? Seraphim System (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Its one of the manual steps of the process. Legobot removes the discussion from the nomination page and adds the top icon, but the reviewer has to manually add it to the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. Seraphim System (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Its one of the manual steps of the process. Legobot removes the discussion from the nomination page and adds the top icon, but the reviewer has to manually add it to the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making false baseless claims
Please stop making false baseless claims about me. I have no COI. I wrote an article about a book. That book was nominated for deletion. I decided to research more about the author. I discovered the author's other books were notable. I wrote articles about them. That is all. Sagecandor (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- You've posted on my talk page like, 6 times today. Please stop posting on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing me of baseless claims, and I will. Agreed? Sagecandor (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor: I am honestly glad we talked about this—I have articles that I haven't nominated because I thought they had to be stable for a reasonable time before being eligible for GA. But I would not fail an article for a criteria I was uncertain about, or during a dispute. This is why I suggested a second opinion. I also would not pass an article where I was uncertain if the criteria had been met. But I was not going to fail the article for stability. The sections I worked on with you are much improved, but there are still issues in the article.
- Please stop accusing me of baseless claims, and I will. Agreed? Sagecandor (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- You've posted on my talk page like, 6 times today. Please stop posting on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The book describes ISIS attempts to remake the world through jihad.
Shouldn't it be ISIS' attempts?grounds the reader within the context of Islamic history
- since Wikipedia is written in encyclopedic style, we generally write our article in terms of verifiable facts. I don't see how "grounding the reader" is a verifiable fact. Even something like "Defeating ISIS grounds its narrative within the context of Islamic history." sounds a little too opinionated to be stated as a verifiable fact. Plus, there is no source given for this view.Nance writes these strategies lead to gross violations of human right
=> Nance writes that these strategiesHe provides an in-depth overview
sounds promotional
In the first paragraph of Research and Release, you write four sentences in a row beginning with Nance. I checked other GA articles to compare, and linked you to Cyber Rights which I thought was a good example of the kind of prose we look for during GA reviews. I was never going to fail the article for any non-existent criteria. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I didn't think it was ready to pass GA. GA review is not a process where the reviewer substantially rewrites the article. My opinion is that the article needs work beyond what I could address during the Review process to bring the prose to where it needs to be to pass GA. Seraphim System (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for these additional specific recommendations:
- Changed the wording here.
- Removed this wording.
- Added word, "that".
- Removed "in-depth" wording here.
- Copyedited to fix the word repetition in that paragraph.
If you have any more specific suggestions, I will address them, point-by-point, in good faith. Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- For example "grounds the reader" — I checked the sources for that paragraph, and I ran a quick search through the articles—I don't see the book described this way. I also checked the sources and they don't mention the Battle of Nahrawan - if you look at Cyber Rights similar language is used "The book's early chapters ground the reader..." but this is sourced to a secondary source. Every statement in that article seems to be sourced to a secondary source. The book itself is only sourced for its basic publication information. We can only describe something the way it is described by WP:RS, not based on our own review of the book. Seraphim System (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I removed all instances of this in that article. Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please explain decline of Draft:Car2X-Communication
Hello, the sources for this article are all either scientific publications (Thesis, government documents e.g. published by the European Commission) or published newspaper articles (e.g. from golem.de). There is no sentence or paragraph without a reference. Why is it that the article is declined due to its references or significant coverage? I can fix the article if I know what to do. Thanks
- @Isschchat: Looking through Google Books, I would suggest adding more secondary sources. The AfC was declined because "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." but the subject may be inherently notable. Seraphim System (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Star Trek Into Darkness
It's only been a day and a half since you conducted your review. I wasn't given any time to work on the issues you pointed out. Failing it immediately was a bit unfair. Rusted AutoParts 12:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I should have put it on hold, I'm sorry. I should have waited a few more days, is there some way I can reverse it or has Legobot done its thing already? Seraphim System (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's done its thing. But it's fine. I'll work in the issues pointed out and then re-nominate. Rusted AutoParts 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Cheatsheet...
I set that up almost 8 or 9 years ago, and its not something that supercedes the actual GA criteria. I also use it for FA reviewing, so it does cover some things that are beyond the GA criteria. There isnt a requirement to have consistent citations in a GA, but you can always ask for them as something additional. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you, I was actually going to ask you about that. Seraphim System (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and peace dove
Thanks for your helpful suggestions about the other article I wrote, even after the review was completed.
You didn't have to take your time and effort to do that and I recognize that and thank you.
I truly feel the article is better for the specific suggestions you gave me. And I did try to implement all of them to the best of my ability.
Thank you for saying you'd recuse at the other page [1]. I really appreciate that gesture of good faith on your part to me. I'll try my best to take that to heart.
Thank you for saying you're still learning yourself and trying to go slow [2].
I get that. I really do, and I can feel your position about that also.
Maybe we've both learned a little bit of something from each other. Sagecandor (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim, thank you very much for your kind comment [3], I really appreciate it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle for Caen
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle for Caen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 June 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) 12:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Legion (season 1)
Hey, is it really necessary to reasses the article? It became a GA two days ago! It hasn't changed since then either. If you seriously think there is a problem, then we can just discuss fixing that rather than go through a whole other silly process. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Too late, I already nominated it when you asked me to go to talk over a semi-colon based on an incorrect example in a Wikipedia article, instead of just googling the grammar rules for semi-colons. The article needs a copy-edit. Several of the articles passed by User:SageCandor still have 1A problems, and GOCE is working on them, but I'm not going to do a copy-edit, if the need for one is disputed. It's better to ask from broader community input at this point, maybe the will disagree with me, maybe they will say "Seraphim, it's just a semi-colon" - but I see other issues with the writing as well, and since you feel it does meet 1a, I am more comfortable with a community reassessment then a unilateral copy-edit. Seraphim System (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-colons are for separating dependent clauses and list items that have their own punctuation. The Wikipedia article I linked to explained that, and so does the blog article you linked to (scroll down to number 3). How about you revert your reassessment nom and have a grown-up discussion at the talk page first. If you feel that we cannot sort this out, then you could go ahead and make the nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't want to become involved in the article development, I would rather hear what other editors think. If there is consensus that it meets 1a, which you seem to be confident that it does, then I will listen to consensus. There is a qualitative difference between example 3 and what is used in our article. Semicolons are at least in part about emphasis-we do have a particular writing style on Wikipedia, and example 3 on Grammarly is not a good example of it. That's not to say we can never use semi colons, but I don't think semi-colons (or internal punctuation) are necessary here, as I would opt for conciseness — for example "The show received critical acclaim for its cast, visual effects and nonlinear storyline." "Unreliable" without the quotation marks doesn't really make sense here either. I think this is something you should have gone through in a full GA review and discussed with a reviewer, which is not your fault.Seraphim System (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would also point out the sentence
Hawley said that he did not want the audience thinking that the series is a puzzle that needs to be solved, saying, "We're going to take a character out of confusion into clarity and an audience out of mystery into clarity";this is seen in the season's latter episodes, which are more narratively straightforward after Haller becomes "clear on what’s going on [and] we are as well."
I would say these are two separate sentences that don't need a semi-colon. It's basically the same without the semi-colon. Should it be "which become more narratively straightforward" — I see why you used are, but I"m not sure that makes it correct. I would have to think about it—these are all things your GA reviewer should have asked you about, but didn't. Seraphim System (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC) - I pulled the GAR for now, it really isn't your fault that SageCandor has done like, 10 reviews in the past two days and passed them all without close-reading for even simple errors like missed commas or punctuation, let alone more substantive discussion about conciseness or prose. GA Review is supposed to be a process where there is some discussion, and most articles should not just be rubber stamped pass without any discussion at all. For example your reviewer should ask you things like "Do you think using "unreliable storytelling" without quotation marks is a good idea?" like I am doing now. But on the whole, the writing is good, and I would rather clean up the errors and discuss possible improvement, instead of having an unecessary reassessment. Seraphim System (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you are serious about all these issues, then I suggest starting a discussion at the article's talk page (like I asked you to previously) where I or any other interested editor can respond to each of your points. To be honest, this seems to me like I have been caught in the middle of a very petty personal argument and doesn't have much to do with the article itself, which makes it hard to assume good faith. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you think "unreliable storytelling" makes sense without quotation marks, I'm not sure further discussion will help. You dont need to assume anything, I pointed a few things out, and I'm leaving it up to you. Seraphim System (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you I'm being petty I can just step back from GA review entirely, we can just let singlehandedly SageCandor tackle the entire backlog. That should be an improvement.Seraphim System (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Very well, I will respond here, but I frankly do not appreciate your childish attitude.
- If you are serious about all these issues, then I suggest starting a discussion at the article's talk page (like I asked you to previously) where I or any other interested editor can respond to each of your points. To be honest, this seems to me like I have been caught in the middle of a very petty personal argument and doesn't have much to do with the article itself, which makes it hard to assume good faith. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-colons are for separating dependent clauses and list items that have their own punctuation. The Wikipedia article I linked to explained that, and so does the blog article you linked to (scroll down to number 3). How about you revert your reassessment nom and have a grown-up discussion at the talk page first. If you feel that we cannot sort this out, then you could go ahead and make the nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, semicolons can be used between two related but independent clauses, for example, "We can go to the museum to do some research; Mondays are pretty quiet there." But that is not their only use. Semicolons can also be used to separate items in a list, if those items "are long or contain internal punctuation". That is pretty basic English to be honest. The sentence you are targeting in the lead of the article is a list of three items, "its cast, particularly Stevens", "Hawley's visuals and design", and "the nonlinear, unreliable nature of the storytelling". Two of those items have their own internal punctuation, so separating the items with commas would not work. That is why semicolons are used, creating the final sentence, "The season received critical acclaim for its cast, particularly Stevens; Hawley's visuals and design; and the nonlinear, unreliable nature of the storytelling." There is nothing wrong with that sentence, and I am surprised that someone who seems to be interested in copy-editing and grammar doesn't know that.
- The term "unreliable narrator" is introduced in quotes and wikilinked to the appropriate article (it is an actual term, not just some un-encyclopaedic description if that is what you think). From then on, there is no need to use quotes every time the term is discussed, if there ever was in the first place.
- The sentence about clarity probably could be split into two, like you say, it doesn't make too much difference. Similarly with the are/become bit, I don't think it makes too much difference. I used "are" because the episodes exist, per WP:TVNOW.
- I am of course happy to discuss any issue with the article if it is going to stop you from making brash edits moving forward. I would ask though that you stop with the condescending tone and superior behaviour. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, and this article is the 30th that I (either alone or working with others) have gotten to GA. This whole situation is a bit frustrating given the baggage that you have dumped on me regarding your little vendetta with Sage, but I would rather try push past that and avoid an even messier situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is the article written in British English? Seraphim System (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm not British if that is what you are asking. If I have made any specific mistakes in regards to American English then please let me know, but I do try pretty hard to get that right. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I just fixed some commas that are outside quotation marks—I believe in American English they are inside quotation marks, and when I noticed there were a lot, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't intentional before I moved them inside the quotation marks. And yes, what you are saying is correct, semi-colons can be used to list items. So, you can do that, but whether you should is another question. Is "casting, visual effects and non-linear storyline" more concise and readable. I think so. Does it remove any essential information? Not really. I also found the "particularly Stevens" clause confusing, because I had to check back to remind myself was being listed (the cast) — this is just a peculiarity of this particular sentence, it just seems to de-emphasize the listed item. I found myself wondering "Received critical acclaim for Stevens' what?" So, when copy-editing I also try to keep the average, casual reader's attention span in mind. If I have to reread a sentence, I assume the average reader won't — As for "unreliable storytelling" — I think this could be made clearer. You introduce it here
Hawley wanted to show Haller as an "unreliable narrator", with the series mixing retro and modern designs, using unconventional filming and musical techniques, and being structured so the audience is unsure what is real.
— but what do set designs and film techniques have to do with being an unreliable narrator? If they are related, I can't figure out how from the context of the paragraph. For most readers this is probably a new concept. The next sentence is. The narrative becomes more clear throughout the season as Haller gains knowledge, and the villainous Shadow King is revealed.
The entire paragraph is kind of mixed up and rushed, and the lead could be expanded. More could be said about visual effects, and each paragraph could have a topic, with subsequent sentences that are related to that topic. That's my 2 cents. Seraphim System (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)- I appreciate the thoughts, and I am not saying that this is completely the best possible wording for everything, but the lead is just a brief summary, it isn't for explaining anything itself or going into too much detail. And if people are confused about what an unreliable narrator is then they can go to the article that explains that. Also, you'll see that I have reverted your punctuation changes. For more information on why, see WP:LQ. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I just fixed some commas that are outside quotation marks—I believe in American English they are inside quotation marks, and when I noticed there were a lot, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't intentional before I moved them inside the quotation marks. And yes, what you are saying is correct, semi-colons can be used to list items. So, you can do that, but whether you should is another question. Is "casting, visual effects and non-linear storyline" more concise and readable. I think so. Does it remove any essential information? Not really. I also found the "particularly Stevens" clause confusing, because I had to check back to remind myself was being listed (the cast) — this is just a peculiarity of this particular sentence, it just seems to de-emphasize the listed item. I found myself wondering "Received critical acclaim for Stevens' what?" So, when copy-editing I also try to keep the average, casual reader's attention span in mind. If I have to reread a sentence, I assume the average reader won't — As for "unreliable storytelling" — I think this could be made clearer. You introduce it here
- No, I'm not British if that is what you are asking. If I have made any specific mistakes in regards to American English then please let me know, but I do try pretty hard to get that right. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is the article written in British English? Seraphim System (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am of course happy to discuss any issue with the article if it is going to stop you from making brash edits moving forward. I would ask though that you stop with the condescending tone and superior behaviour. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, and this article is the 30th that I (either alone or working with others) have gotten to GA. This whole situation is a bit frustrating given the baggage that you have dumped on me regarding your little vendetta with Sage, but I would rather try push past that and avoid an even messier situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks for WP:LQ, thats good to know. But yes, one thing to remember about semi colons is they will draw your readers eye. That is in some way their primary function, to make a list easier to read, and to structure a sentence. Sometimes I avoid using an en dash simply because it will draw the eye of the reader, and that may be something I want to avoid. Do I think the lede is quite up to GA? Honestly, no. The fact that it is supposed to be a brief summary has very little to do with what I said above. The only reason I am not doing an independent reassessment is because of the ongoing situation with SageCandor. Seraphim System (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Or if you prefer Kurt Vonnegut
and further pertinent reading: from the LA Times — and there are many semi colons in this article, which I would say is also grounds to fail. Where semi-colons are used often, and in very long sentences, then I would say it could be more concise. Or rather, it could be broken up into shorter sentences, that connect events to one another, for the benefit of the reader. If semi colons are used regularly as a way to put together sentences with excessive inclusive punctuation, then what you end up with is more like paragraphs condensed into a list-sentences. A lot of them. But semi-colons are controversial, and I would actually like input from other editors here. Sentences like this are very difficult to read:“My advice to writers just starting out? Don't use semi-colons! They are transvestite hermaphrodites, representing exactly nothing. All they do is suggest you might have gone to college.”
Murphy's sculpture, Suspension of Disbelief, features "hundreds of colorful utilitarian objects" hung from the ceiling that, when looked at from a specific spot, form the word "Legion"; Behr's installation, Doors, is "the corridor of a hospital that’s been blown apart", allowing visitors to walk "between fragments of rooms and doorways strewn with mirror fragments"; Yamashita created Lovers, silhouettes of David Haller and Syd Barrett that are separated by "thin pieces of board, preventing the figures from clasping hands", which "greets visitors at the show’s entrance"; and Flores' mural Legion, "being used as the key art for the show, depicts a fiery explosion emanating from David’s mind.
And there are a lot of them, so I may ask for community reassessment, but only after I've watched the show. I don't want to go through the entire article right now, because I don't want any spoilers. Seraphim System (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C.. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:National Emblem of Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Emblem of Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Italy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Italy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dobruja
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dobruja. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
BLP unsourced
BTW, the BLP unsourced template should usually only be used on articles that don't qualify for Template:Prod blp, which is usually going to be articles that have external links but no references. If the article has no references and no external links, best to PROD it instead. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks. Seraphim System (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on it. First, I needed to get rid of a lot of the extraneous detail. I also worked to check the sources to make sure they supported what was in the article. Now I'm working on finding citations for all the sentences that are currently unsourced. It'll take a while, but we'll get the article up to snuff, but it works best if we take it in bite sized chunks and don't go off chasing things while working on another section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 June 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, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Deprod: The Madrasa of Abulkosim
Hello, I have deprodded The Madrasa of Abulkosim as it is ineligible for prod due to a past prod nomination. I only did this for procedural reasons and would not object to deletion via AfD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC) @Kuyabribri: ok sorry, how can I know if something has been prod-ed before?
- No worries. There isn't really a foolproof way to check for a previous prod but here is what I typically do:
- Check the talk page for a tag saying "This page has been proposed for deletion in the past" or "This page was previously nominated for deletion".
- Check the edit summaries in the article history. This gets a little more tedious. I usually open the history and use my browser's "Find" function to search the terms "prod", "propose", "delete", and similar. If I find an edit summary that looks like it's a prod nomination I open that revision just to be sure there actually was a prod nomination, especially if it was done by an IP user.
- I hope that helps. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Évian Conference
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Évian Conference. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please send me an email? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sit-in movement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sit-in movement. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Your comment on etiquette would likely have more weight on the user's talk page. At an AfD discussion, it gets lost amid other arguments, but on a talk page, other editors can comment if they see a pattern. At least for the future, if you don't want to move it now. 
czar 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. Seraphim System (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Copyediting of Muhammad I of Granada
Thank you so much for copyediting the article. I noticed you added some clarification requests. I answered them in Talk:Muhammad I of Granada for better posterity. HaEr48 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not done with the copy edit I will try to finish it today and respond to the clarify issues on talk. Seraphim System (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologies
I was hasty and lazy in actually reading crap and just assumed whatever a more experienced editor than myself was correct and reverted based on that -- my apologies, there's really not much I can say to justify myself here. I'll try to be better in the future. --Yalens (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Np, also regarding adding images, I have no objection to it but the article text needs expansion (even with the current number of images) — adding more now is detrimental to the layout, especially adding the images before the sections for them have been written. The diaspora section is full of one line subsections, and more images can be added after it has been expanded, and the Circassian music section still needs to be added to culture (as does dance). Language should probably be moved to a separate section. Seraphim System (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hungarians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hungarians. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Reverts under DS
Hi, Seraphim System! I noticed your comment in an edit summary, saying that people should do things in a single edit so that it's countable for DS purposes. That isn't necessary. The 1RR rule applies to a revert "or series of reverts"; in other words, a series of edits done in close proximity in a single session counts as one edit for 1RR purposes. Lots of people prefer to do a series of small edits instead of one massive edit and this guideline acknowledges that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Sorry is Oathkeepers under DS? I thought it wasnt since we have IP editors who edit it? Is there anyway to have the page semi-protected from IPs? I'm worried about Morty's SPI page - I dont know how to switch proxies or anything, and it seems like intimidation/harassment. If the page is semi-protected then IPs cant edit it anymore, right? I'm worried because I hear that behavioral SPI can be a very unfair process withoit any actual evidence of socking needed? Is that true? I am in a very big city so undoubtledly some IPs will be in the same area. He could even be faking the evidence. It really feels malicious especially woth his attitude towards editors and general disruptiveness, that I think he should be indeff'd. This goes beyond POV disputes, he has shownthat he has severe problems coping with editors who disagree with him.Seraphim System (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misremembered your edit summary, I thought you had said 1RR. The same rule applies for 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Oath Keepers does not appear to have been tagged for DS sanctions. The fact that IPs can edit it is an entirely different issue; that means it has not been placed under semi-protection. DS articles are not automatically protected. In my opinion Oath Keepers does not qualify for protection at this time; IP edits there are not terribly common and have not become disruptive. I have the article on my watchlist in case it becomes a problem, or protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. As for the page he is building, I don't know what if anything he is going to do with it and I would advise you not to worry about it. "Faking evidence" is really not possible, although it's possible to misstate what the evidence shows. And I have been very impressed with the fairness and expertise of the admins who work at WP:SPI. As for any future blocks, that will depend on his behavior, and yes, I am keeping an eye on that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. I thought since most of his evidence seems to based on IP edits, it could be anyone logging in from IPs, and then this could be used as evidence. All I know is that it wasn't me and I haven't really gotten involved when IPs have tried to change "far right", since we had already discussed it at length on talk and consensus supported "far right" Seraphim System (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misremembered your edit summary, I thought you had said 1RR. The same rule applies for 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Oath Keepers does not appear to have been tagged for DS sanctions. The fact that IPs can edit it is an entirely different issue; that means it has not been placed under semi-protection. DS articles are not automatically protected. In my opinion Oath Keepers does not qualify for protection at this time; IP edits there are not terribly common and have not become disruptive. I have the article on my watchlist in case it becomes a problem, or protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. As for the page he is building, I don't know what if anything he is going to do with it and I would advise you not to worry about it. "Faking evidence" is really not possible, although it's possible to misstate what the evidence shows. And I have been very impressed with the fairness and expertise of the admins who work at WP:SPI. As for any future blocks, that will depend on his behavior, and yes, I am keeping an eye on that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Sorry is Oathkeepers under DS? I thought it wasnt since we have IP editors who edit it? Is there anyway to have the page semi-protected from IPs? I'm worried about Morty's SPI page - I dont know how to switch proxies or anything, and it seems like intimidation/harassment. If the page is semi-protected then IPs cant edit it anymore, right? I'm worried because I hear that behavioral SPI can be a very unfair process withoit any actual evidence of socking needed? Is that true? I am in a very big city so undoubtledly some IPs will be in the same area. He could even be faking the evidence. It really feels malicious especially woth his attitude towards editors and general disruptiveness, that I think he should be indeff'd. This goes beyond POV disputes, he has shownthat he has severe problems coping with editors who disagree with him.Seraphim System (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I would not ordinarily comment in such a jaguar-like fashion over a conduct dispute, but it seems appropriate to notify you that I cannot AGF with respect to certain comments above feigning a lack of knowledge about SPI, most specifically the question,
"I hear that behavioral SPI can be a very unfair process withoit any actual evidence of socking needed? Is that true?"
SS was recently blocked for socking and complained bitterly about the unfairness of the process. The process has been explained to them in considerable detail. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: No behavioral SPI is entirely different, I assume MelanieN understood what I was asking about―in some major and epic cases of sock puppetry the CheckUsers look for behavioral evidence, especially long standing, persistent cases where CheckUser is not going to be effective. Like JaraxleArtemis who is to be blocked on sight, immediately—I don't think CheckUser evidence is strictly needed in major cases like this. There are a few others that I don't remember of specific users who have seriously attacked the encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with whether or not there was enough evidence to run a CheckUser in the first place. Besides, why would I lie about that? I didn't lie about my one time vandal account and if I had the block would have probably been lifted, so this would be a strange time for me to start wouldn't it. Seraphim System (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, I suppose I had misunderstood. I'm not even going to go there on the rest of your comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Dr. Fleischman. Seraphim, there certainly are block-on-sight cases where a new editor is recognized by behavior as a WP:Long term abuse account and blocked immediately, by any admin, not just a CheckUser. I don't think there are many mistakes in those cases. But there has to be well-established long-term abuse and recognizable editing patterns, and I don't think it would ever be applied to an established user. BTW, "talk about the content, not the other editors" applies to you too. If you publicly "needle" Morty you are part of the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok I will stop replying to him, I haven't really interacted with him outisde the Oath Keepers article anyway (except the AN/I complaint), and there are enough regular editors actively involved in discussions on the article talk page that my replying directly to his comments isn't really necessary for consensus. In the event that it is just us two, I guess dispute resolution might be a good option. Seraphim System (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Dr. Fleischman. Seraphim, there certainly are block-on-sight cases where a new editor is recognized by behavior as a WP:Long term abuse account and blocked immediately, by any admin, not just a CheckUser. I don't think there are many mistakes in those cases. But there has to be well-established long-term abuse and recognizable editing patterns, and I don't think it would ever be applied to an established user. BTW, "talk about the content, not the other editors" applies to you too. If you publicly "needle" Morty you are part of the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, I suppose I had misunderstood. I'm not even going to go there on the rest of your comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: No behavioral SPI is entirely different, I assume MelanieN understood what I was asking about―in some major and epic cases of sock puppetry the CheckUsers look for behavioral evidence, especially long standing, persistent cases where CheckUser is not going to be effective. Like JaraxleArtemis who is to be blocked on sight, immediately—I don't think CheckUser evidence is strictly needed in major cases like this. There are a few others that I don't remember of specific users who have seriously attacked the encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with whether or not there was enough evidence to run a CheckUser in the first place. Besides, why would I lie about that? I didn't lie about my one time vandal account and if I had the block would have probably been lifted, so this would be a strange time for me to start wouldn't it. Seraphim System (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Good article reviews for 2 articles
Hello Seraphim System, I've fixed all the issues you brought up with two of the articles you were reviewing for Good Article status, G (New York City Subway service) and Citi Bike. Would you mind leaving feedback on their respective GA nominations so they can either pass or receive more improvement? It would be much appreciated. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bosaso
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bosaso. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Badme
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Badme. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 June 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) 00:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
June 2017 GOCE Blitz Barnstar
|
The Cleanup Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to Seraphim System for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
- Thank you also for your additional copy-edits during this blitz! I look forward to seeing your contributions during the July drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 July 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) 04:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Syria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syria. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Iran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Needing your comment
I am asking this to you, because from your profile you are a law expert (and we had one past encounter). Can an event be included on Wikipedia under discrimination (against a group) if the reported act was committed by someone suffering with schizophrenia and having been hospitalized (for it) after the act? Can an act be considered as discrimination, if the individual having committed it can not be prosecuted and be considered as criminally responsible for the act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate question, since we can probably never understand what was happening in the mind of the individual, if he heard a voice, was he discriminating or just following the voices? What's your take on that? Yaḥyā (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, I haven't seen any cases about this. I can say that we don't usually "prosecute" for discrimination. There are some hate crime laws that are more like sentence enhancing guidelines (i.e. a crime has to be committed for it to be a "hate crime", the speech by itself is not criminal, but violence, intimidation, harassment, property damage might be.) Also, generally speaking, anything added to the encyclopedia would have to be sources appropriately for the article (to legal sources for a law article or other academic sources for a general article.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- So if there is no possible crime (due to mental illness), there can be no hate crime committed?
- Well, mental illness is an excuse defense, so I if I remember this correctly, it would negate mens rea, so yes. But the threshold for insanity is extremely high, I can't comment on whether being hospitalized would have any effect. Unless there is a Court decision that has accepted an insanity defense, I don't think the article should necessarily have to be excluded because of a hospitalization. Going back to what I said earlier, it would depend on the WP:RS, which I haven't seen. Seraphim System (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- So if there is no possible crime (due to mental illness), there can be no hate crime committed?
- I don't know, I haven't seen any cases about this. I can say that we don't usually "prosecute" for discrimination. There are some hate crime laws that are more like sentence enhancing guidelines (i.e. a crime has to be committed for it to be a "hate crime", the speech by itself is not criminal, but violence, intimidation, harassment, property damage might be.) Also, generally speaking, anything added to the encyclopedia would have to be sources appropriately for the article (to legal sources for a law article or other academic sources for a general article.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:49, 7 July 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) 00:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Longquan celadon
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Longquan celadon. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox former country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox former country. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lifta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lifta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Two different definitions of Pentecost
I don't know if this was taken into consideration, I haven't read all the exchanges in the talkpage... I also left a comment in Jpbrenna talkpage since I have left another comment in the talkpage. The differences between both definitions has to be taken into consideration when terming the other ways to call it... because those terms might either refer to definition 1 or 2. One is inclusive of Easter, the other is not.
I guess this might settle the issue, it will only confirm that the confusion lies in the fact that Pentecost might mean two different things. Yaḥyā (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- this isnt an etymology issue, the stynology is simole pente as in pentagram, pentagon, pentecost. Seraphim System (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)