User talk:BSMRD

April 2021

Thank you for contributing to the article Xinjiang cotton industry. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The "unreliable" source I used was Chinese state media, to source what Chinese media was saying, I don't see how that is "unreliable". I did not assert their statements as fact, merely included what they said, quoting them, to improve the articles completeness and neutrality. BSMRD (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

CGTN is WP:DEPRECATED. You have a lot to learn, slow down a bit... Review WP:NPOV before making any more comments about what you think neutrality is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The section being edited was about reactions to allegations against the Chinese government. What Chinese state media is saying about said allegations is relevant to the section, I did not cite CGTN's statement as fact, and included citations to other articles by different state media sources. I would not use a source like that to ascertain the facts of a situation, but as an example of what Chinese media is saying about the allegations, it seems to me a perfectly valid use. WP:NPOV states that all significant viewpoints should be represented, and the Chinese states view, while biased, is significant. With regards to WP:DEPRECATED I did not use CGTN to source a claim about a situation's reality (which CGTN is known to be a poor source for, hence it's deprecation), but rather to know what Chinese state media is saying about the issue (CGTN is a perfect example of Chinese state media, which is partially why it is deprecated). If you would like to cite a western source about what Chinese media is saying I suppose I could, but it seems faster to simply cite the Chinese media itself. BSMRD (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Try again, WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Cherry picking policy like that in the future could get you in trouble, I’d recommend not doing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

CGTN is a Reliable Source on the contents of what Chinese media is saying, because it is the Chinese media saying it. If a section about the contents of Nazi propaganda cited Der Sturmer as an example, linking directly to an article, that would be a valid citation, even though the claims within the article were bunk, because it isn't about the accuracy of the claims, merely that they were said at all. A CGTN article is a Reliable Source on what that article says, and should be allowed to be cited as such. BSMRD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A section about the contents of Nazi propaganda could not cite Der Sturmer as an example, however they could use what a reliable source says about Der Sturmer. Where are you getting these ideas about how things work on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources I am stating that a statement was made, and using the statement as a source that it was made. No value judgements were made and I did not present CGTN's statements as fact, merely that they were stated. As far as I can tell that seems to be a valid use of a primary source, which in this case CGTN is. Had I used the cited CGTN article to say "the allegations are baseless", I agree that would be against both WP:RS and WP:NPOV, however using CGTN as source on "CGTN stated the allegations were baseless" by linking to them saying that is fair, and it's presence in that section of the article is justified by it being a reaction against the allegations made by the group it was made against, making it significant. BSMRD (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if it could be used there would still be a lack of WP:DUEWEIGHT without coverage by an independent reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record

I think you are completely right in using CGTN to cite a claim specifically made by Chinese state media. Just because a source is deprecated by RSP does not mean it cannot be used to discuss claims specifically made by the source itself, especially with in line attribution and as long as the claims are not put in wiki voice, as RSP states a deprecated source "may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions." I'd also like to let you know there are MANY people who believe RSP to be an imperfect system that has especially been used to favor western perspectives in articles. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate it, I enjoy wikipedia as a repository for knowledge however I find some of it's policies lead to... gaps, especially WRT information on actively ongoing subjects.BSMRD (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. I think it's a glorious thing (especially on non-controversial topics, although they aren't immune to edit wars either), but there are situations where the policies can lead to very rigid constrictions that prevent articles from giving a WP:NPOV. Although the hope is that eventually things set themselves straight, it can be a long process and requires a lot of discussions between editors. I'm hoping we eventually see a cultural change that is more lenient in regards to claims that are properly in-line attributed by controversial subjects. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to take a step back from active controversies and am trying to de-essayify John Brown (abolitionist). It's nice to work on something relatively "uncontroversial".BSMRD (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Anytime I get too frustrated with current event articles I dial back and go work on an archaeology page (did some cleanup for a few ceramics sites in Japan earlier). I do at least enjoy that I can take a break from conflict when I need to, which is much harder on other sites. John Brown is a damn amazing figure in American history so I'd be grateful for anyone improving his article. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I will freely admit to being a fan of his as well, I took a look at his article about a week ago though and it was something of a mess. The info is... decent, though lacking in citations, but the way it is written reads more like a commercial biography than an encyclopedic article, so I took the time to properly tag it up and have been slowly trying to put it in order, some other editors seem to have joined in, so thats nice.BSMRD (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Azov Battalion (review before posting)

Good afternoon, I'd like to start an RfC about determining the status of the Azov Battalion and what how to describe their links to/descriptions as a neo-Nazi group. I would like you to share your opinion on the format, correctness and content of the questions before I start the RfC.The draft is here. Thank you in advance for your participation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good as a base, I would remove question 3 as I have seen nothing to indicate an ideological shift from 2014, and reformulate some of the options for question 2 that mention "characterize" per MOS:DOUBT. The problem with question 2 is that it is an objective fact that many (I would argue most) commentators and observers have characterized Azov as Neo-Nazi, what is in dispute is whether or not those observations lend themselves to a wikivoice statement of Neo-Nazism. Presenting them as alternatives creates an implication that the characterization is false. BSMRD (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please copy the comment in the Azov Battalion's talk, so that we have all opinions in one place, possibly modifying for my clarifications made below.

As for "characterise", this is a proposal for a general guideline about what to write and what not to - exact words will be chosen later on, with the general guidance of the RfC settled on the matter; but you can of course propose a better synonym. Opinions about which option you prefer most are not relevant at this moment, just evaluate the wording of the options and all potential options that could be argued. Thank you for your input. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I would like to notify you that an RfC on the topic has just started. It is located here. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

John Brown (abolitionist)

Hi BSMRD, please consider contributing to the John Brown article. I hope you find it a bit cleaned up now. Attic Salt (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking up the mantle of cleaning it up, it looks much better than when I found it. BSMRD (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

This user is trying to get you banned as a Sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL

Appreciate the heads up. BSMRD (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to open an old wound, but I notice one of the users very active in making sock puppet accusations in that discussion has also attempted to use sanctions to “gotcha” me into administrative actions. I don’t think this behavior bodes well for those editing controversial topics. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of some of the editors habits, and I can handle myself. If I get dragged into another SPI I am going to be much more vocal about my displeasure however. BSMRD (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Re

[1]. I do not want to clog the discussion. I think the definition by UN, by Webster, etc. is very clear, and all these events do fall under the definition of genocide, including Soviet deportations and Tibet. Sure, they have been described in many different ways (including as genocide) in various sources. As about the coverage in English WP, I think it is biased towards the communist governments for whatever reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit to the section titled united states

Could you please add to the united states page that it is a corporate dictatorship made possible by unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. Also that bitcoin is the main form of currency used to pay off politicians. Many corporate interest groups are writing legislation that acts is implement into a pay per play system of writing law, And executive orders. Ilovethefunnythings (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No, unless you have some great RS to that effect. Also you can make edit requests on the talk page of the articles you would like changed, please don't solicit editors for specific edits. Also, why did you make an account just to ask me about this? BSMRD (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting Procedural Close by administrator at Talk:Radio Free Asia, per WP:GS/UYGHUR. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the RfC snafu

Believe it or not wikipedia's guides are not always the most direct or clear on issues of formatting (probably due to it often falling under certain unspoken rules) and I wasn't trying to botch anything in the process. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I probably should have been clearer on the "YOU SHOULD DO THIS". I also think that certain people were eager to get the RfC thrown out for procedural reasons, but it was kind of bungled. Just let things play out and we can get a better formulated RfC up, one needs to happen regardless, this is clearly a contentious issue. BSMRD (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Milicia Popular moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Milicia Popular, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Short Descriptions

I can always count on you to jump in with a short description for pretty much all the newer articles I've looked at recently, thanks for all the work you put in on that. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a really minor thing but a lot of editors forget about them but they are pretty useful for database and classification purposes, so I like to fill them in where they are missing. BSMRD (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I know they're something I always forget for sure, I'm quite surprised the number of topics I've been able to build pages out of but then forget minor details for. I almost forgot to put the release date for Long Bow Trilogy in the lede until another editor caught it while sandboxing. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of, I need to finish working on my little stub draft at Draft:Milicia Popular, I made it a little while ago but kind of forgot about it. Honestly not 100% sure if it should be it's own article or integrated into 5th Regiment. BSMRD (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

National Resistance Front of Afghanistan

Hi BSMRD. There is nothing wrong with being WP:bold and fixing things without prior discussion, per WP:BRD. But when it comes to move requests or other more formal processes, we are expected to follow the required steps. In this case, to wait for other editor to close the request. Having said that, your edits and work to improve wikipedia are very much appreciated. We all make occassional mistakes. Hope you continue editing and enjoying Wikipedia. Vpab15 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of governors of Texas by age for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes talk page

That edit was made in error, my apologies. I did not intend to edit another user's comment (the size of that page is killing my browser and making my cursor jump about). Thanks for reverting it. DublinDilettante (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, just try not to do it again. BSMRD (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation

Hello, BSMRD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Milicia Popular

Hello, BSMRD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Milicia Popular, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Thanks for your reasonable comments in a sea of ideological irrationalism. As I wrote here, this news source is not about the topic and is referring only to Tiananmen ("China's Communist leaders have made any discussion of the brutal quelling of the student-led demonstrations -- in which hundreds, maybe thousands, were killed -- taboo, but dissidents say the public could yet hold them accountable.") "Some, such as the Chinese Communist Party, have attempted to suppress discussion and study of such killings" is just more editorializing and SYNTH, like it about the "Red holocaust." Do you think my analysis is correct? Davide King (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not about the topic. Frankly, Tiananmen as a whole is questionably a mass killing, with common death tolls being a fair bit under the definitions we have been using, but that's besides the point. The source is clearly in regards to Chinese suppression of discussion of the Tiananmen protests and the events surrounding, and says nothing about a broader suppression of discussion of "such killings". In fact, it's barely even about that, being mostly a description of Tiananmen and being a sort of call to action against China, but it most certainly does not support the text it is cited for. BSMRD (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a perfectly reasonable response and analysis, thank you! I know this is a long discussion, but may you look at this? We are using Watson, who believed that Nazism and Nazi concentration camps were socialists, that Hitler was a Marxist, and that Marx and Engels were the founder of genocide, to write that quote paragraph. It was removed but has been re-added1, despite clearly being disputed and no longer having consensus for inclusion. Davide King (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly question anyone who suggests Hitler or the Nazis were Marxists, there is a reason why the FAQ of the Nazi Party article explicitly rejects this postulation. It is a very much fringe view and deserves no place on wikipedia or in any serious academic discussion. BSMRD (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree but it is still there, and we are just going to be reverted again and again if we remove it. Yet they quibble about anything to balance the article, and even do not understand the point of Engel-DiMauro's academic article, which does not necessarily support a capitalist death toll but rather shows how the Communist death toll is methodologically flawed, just likeThe Black Book of Capitalism did for The Black Book of Communism. Davide King (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing comments by other contributors

• Please do not modify or remove my comments on article talk page as you did here [2]. If you have concerns, please ask an advice from one of admins. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I neither removed nor modified your comment, I moved it to the appropriate location. The RfC header is not the place to ask questions about the RfC. Such questions and comments should be placed under the Discussion section. I don't understand why you keep placing your already answered question in an inappropriate section. BSMRD (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please never move my comments. Thanks. Moreover, you did remove my comments, not just moved it - as this diff shows. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed your duplicated question, which again was already answered. If you look at that diff you will see that your question is still on the page in the appropriate section. Why do you feel the need to have your question twice? Furthermore, I don't appreciate you coming along and slapping spurious DS warnings on my page. If you think I've committed some violation, take it to AE. I'd love to hear what they think. BSMRD (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not a duplicate posting, as one can easily see. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It clearly was (and still is). You can see your question twice on the page right now. BSMRD (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I placed my question in certain place after a comment by certain contributor. This is because I wanted an answer from that specific contributor. By moving my comment to another place you messed it up.My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Then the appropriate way to solicit that editors opinion is to make a post in the discussion section, and then to ping the editor in question, or to ask on their talk page as you have already done. By placing your question in the header (which is to introduce editors to the dispute) you are unduly influencing the process, especially with your vague and unfounded assertions about there "probably being many others" who agree with you. With how hot and contentious this topic area is, it is important that the introduction to the RfC stay as stable and neutral as possible. I ask again why do you feel the need to keep your question there when you have already gotten answers elsewhere including from the editor you supposedly need it there to get the attention of? BSMRD (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? Because it was exactly proper place to ask in my opinion. The submitter of the RfC said that there are options A, B, C, D, but did not include "Keeping status quo" or "None of the above" options. I asked if he meant "C" as keeping status quo, which was NOT at all clear (and still is not clear from the RfC wording). Proper way to fix it would be something like C ... (keeping status quo). My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DS notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation

Hello, BSMRD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[3]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You know I've already gotten one of these right? I'm well aware of how DS work. BSMRD (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov

Hey, I have just had my attention drawn to the fact that you had already received an alert in January, so giving you one was not only unneeded for complaining about your bad behaviour, but against a rule. So sorry for placing that D/s Alert —I knew about the rule but missed the previous notice . I'm happy to self-revert, or you can just delete it if you wish. Let me know which you prefer. Thanks, Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

500 protection on Azov Battalion

Hi BSMRD, this is my last comment[4] in the Azov battalion talk. In this message I talk about the possibility of protecting the discussion for users with less than 500 changes, as I think it is already active on Polish issues, because I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia. Now, I don't really know how these things work, would you by chance be able to explain to me how and where a discussion of this type opens?--Mhorg (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, any request for protection like that would be made at WP:RFP. Protecting a talk page would likely require some level of consensus first though. Maybe make a post at WP:AN first, to let people weigh in? There was already this post, but it didn't gain much attention. BSMRD (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much BSMRD, was what I was looking for. I hope I can return the courtesy (I don't know if it makes sense in English :) ). Mhorg (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Paragon Deku (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)