User talk:Serols: Difference between revisions

Can I know, how can I add a article on wikipedia Mir areiba ashraf (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mir areiba ashraf, see here - Wikipedia:How to create a page. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a child, I made that edit for a reason. 184.157.16.214 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page before you delete whole sections. --Serols (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, so when you report such IPs, you are risking to get blocked yourself for editing warring. Step back and wait for a 3rd opinion. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Materialscientist, the IP has deleted the section for no apparent reason, no source, or equivalent. I'm not a child, I made that edit for a reason. -> is also no reason to disregard the rules of Wikipedia.

Your hint you are risking to get blocked yourself for editing warring, therefore I don't understand.

The Wikipedia rules are clear: Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior.

This means that you have to create 3 to 4 warnings, this I did. If one considers the rules, is with your definition all edit war. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP has explained their deletion. At that point you should have make a decision: whether you treat this as vandalism or a content dispute; this decision is yours and you are responsible for that.

If you decide this is a content dispute, you can only tag them for edit warring and lack of summaries. In this case you use WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. Ideally you don't reach 3RR, but wait for an evaluation by a 3rd editor. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If edits are clear vandalism, tag and report them as usual. If this is not clear vandalism, but rather a violation of WP policies (like unexplained removal of reliably sourced content) then I would recommend talking to the editor/IP instead of templating/reporting. They might see something you are missing (violation of WP:NPOV, unreliable sourcing, etc. - usually they spend more time on evaluation that patrollers), and here you are risking more than just a 24 hour block for edit warring. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Materialscientist, this is not a rule-compliant declaration,(This isn't a thing 🤦🏻‍♂️, and please read the talk-page. Have a nice day --Serols (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Serols, I would like to add a new external link the the Ahegao page and you reverted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahegao&oldid=987190508 Maybe I'm missing something from the guidelines. Can you please help me understand why my link is not acceptable and the others are? Thank you. SummerMosquito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SummerMosquito, answer on your talk page. Regars --Serols (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your speedy anti-vandalism work! Elmssuper 15:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, sorry if my edits showed off as vandalizing. You can erase any edits I made that don't look appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll be more careful from now on.Gokberktalu (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gokberktalu, thats fine. --Serols (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to why the entry for Turkish Accusative Case was also reverted? Is it due to the external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokberktalu (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gokberktalu, because of the reference link. Regards --Serols (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference link I provided is my own article I wrote. It was made specifically for everyone to access for free (you can check the link if you like). Are non academic citations/links not allowed here? Could you please point to a documentation showing how I can attribute websites. --Gokberktalu (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gokberktalu, please read Wikipedia:Weblinks. Regards --Serols (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team Recently I made few minor changes in this wiki page : Võ Cạnh inscription, which is a Page Related to History. The previous Information on this page was incorrect. , So I corrected those Information. My corrections are Based on Proven historical facts and even few wiki pages have the similar info of my correction. But still my Edits are Removed and Said as Appeared to be Vandalism. I edited On behalf of A group of Researchers who worked on this field. So request The team to Help me out by solving this issue. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VelKadamban (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case about this vandal has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnny15678. Hopefully there will be an outcome that allows future sockpuppets to be dealt with more quickly. FDW777 (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	nice job i guess JayPlaysStuff (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encomendado believes you are my sockpuppet. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chicdat, does that bother us? That does not bother me. Regards --Serols (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he should be blocked. Also, please call me Chicdat, not 🐔. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chicdat, see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi am so sorry I didn't mean to its just my small brotheres i won't leave my phone with them omg i amm soo a shamed and u also deleted my draft i worked so hard on it plzz re considere i didn't sleep last night because I was traveling to get this information and you just simply delete them i want to talk to the manger rn rnrnrnnr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Host 9099087 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits in Ming Jie, please see Brent's Instagram, he referred his own surname as "Hsu" instead of "Xu". There is no mistake in doing so. Please verify before reverting. Thank you.--LuciferianThomas (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LuciferianThomas, see your talk page. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just edited the page of lasina traore (nickname), but you removed it. His nickname is the coat rack from bobo-dioulasso, so i wanted to add this since it wasn't on wikipedia yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.156.30 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serols, edits such as at Vladimir Leposavić are very unlikely to be "vandalism" (malicious, with the intent to damage the encyclopedia), and even less likely to be "obvious vandalism" that qualifies for WP:ROLLBACKUSE without edit summary and with only a generic "vandalism" warning on the disagreeing user's page. As the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content and WP:3RR exists, please reconsider your approach to such situations. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ ToBeFree, I agree with you, please see here 1 and here. Have a nice day --Serols (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but... the same applies to you, doesn't it? ;) You too ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ ToBeFree, please see the history. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that others have reverted too; I was just concerned about the number of your reverts, and about Huggle's "vandalism" button having been used to make four of them. I just wanted to tell you that theoretically, this would have qualified for a WP:3RR block, and that it likely constituted a misuse of the rollback permission. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ ToBeFree, for me it was vandalism (also for three other users), and vm would like to have several warnings. I also reported the article here - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The article and the user were then blocked. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is not always vandalism, let alone "obvious vandalism". Concerns about libel are extremely unlikely to be vandalism. However, only obvious vandalism qualifies for summary-less rollback and more than three reverts. The page was protected because of disruption, not vandalism; the user was blocked for edit-warring, which you did too. I'm not sure why there's any disagreement about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ ToBeFree, don't understand the discussion either. The user does not respond to repeated requests to open the discussion page, one admin and 2 other users have also reverted the deletion, vm needs several warnings that I sent, user was blocked because edit warring, personal attacks, aspersions and you accuse me of edit war. I really don't understand, but the discussion is now finished for me and would not like to have any further explanations. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		For doing great work reverting vandalism and handling rcp-related things. Huzzah to you! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to review this discussion. Maybe you can tell the same thing you told me to Aleenf1 if you look carefully (unless you're another one thinking that Wikipedia double standards are fine, so that hypocrite isn't an insult and peasant is instead). Anyway, I can't wait for one of you to find a source for SE Asia Champions League broadcasters: I will laugh at you so loudly until the moment. Because what Aleenf1 is doing is spreading misinformation. As I can see now Aleenf1 got some watchdogs also, maybe as a reward for his great contribution to this project, the free encyclopedia LOL --151.50.218.223 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 151.50.218.223, please discuss normally and not outrageously, thanks. --Serols (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already seen doing this by that bigot who goes under the name of Greg Burrell (ivanvector here on Wikipedia). When you cannot answer fairly, delete their answer. In some countries, it's called censorship: here on Wikipedia it's just "raising a constructive discussion". It's just the name that changes. Delete also this now :D GADOR --151.50.218.223 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@151.50.218.223: Do not try to whine about 'censorship' after showing poor conduct on Wikipedia. These are some of your statements:

"Ahahah you such a peasant."; "LOL Get help, asap."; "Greg Burrell (or ivanvector if you prefer) here is another evidence of how Wikipedia English is a lair of bigots and hypocrites"

Your edits are all personal attacks against other editors, including this very one I'm now responding to. That is simply disallowed on Wikipedia, and I think you know this. Do you honestly expect to be treated just the way you want on a website whose rules you wantonly break? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I've been defined an hypocrite at first and no one moved a finger to punish the guy who insulted me. I've been blocked for excessive trolling instead (let alone the fact the page was left not updated with wrong information displayed on it). Then the user who goes under the name of ivanvector told me to grow up when the user Aleenf1 was the one arguing like a little baby (but I guess that's okay if that's your policy about insults, isn't it?). Now, I've to hear that I'm getting paid back for what I did when I was actually arguing civilly with Aleenf1 and I've been offended first in this whole absurd story. No, this is not how coherence works mr. Tell. The one who broke the rules is still unpunished and his name is Aleenf1...I had tried only to discuss a matter the same guy didn't even want to hear about. This is outrageously senseless because it means that certain users can also offend other people on Wikipedia and get away with it, but if someone else tries to do the same ends up in this situation. DOUBLE STANDARDS. --151.50.218.223 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, please, have the courage to admit that saying hypocrite to someone else isn't an insult for you. Admit that some users can offend other people and stay unpunished. This farce is sickening. --151.50.218.223 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is a sex offender, whether he was found innocent on a technicality that the person who had the offense committed against them is now deceased and it cannot be confirmed or not... His name will forever be besmirched by the reality that he is a sex offender. Therefore your deletion is both unwaranted and blanked from my history. --120.22.0.52 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was acquitted and is therefore considered innocent, whether that is fair or not. --Serols (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is innocent in no ones books --120.22.0.52 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not relevant, the discussion is over. --Serols (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't try to vandalism anything. its true. im from the city and it causing problems. the reason for this article isnt even true. the entire foundation met only once or twice. Why is there all this for only one meeting that never came about after. There are 20 people listed and non of them did anything except show up for one meeting. The first article is race baiting and caused a problem at work. Its fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oijdgoijg30jg (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discussion at Talk:Bring_New_Orleans_Back_Commission#Removal, and I have interpreted the comment as a proposal for deletion (WP:PROD). Since you have restored the content twice, perhaps you'd like to join the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serols,

Happy Christmas!

Apologies for the inconvenience but my edits to the “Byzantine Empire” and “Byzantine” page were not vandalism. I simply intended to give greater prominence to the title “The Eastern Roman Empire” as this is academically a more accurate term. “Byzantine” and the “Byzantine Empire” were terms created by enlightenment era historians seeking to make out that the empire was a decadent and super religious failed state in order to critique the Christian Church in their own times by showing how bad religion is. This is even discussed in the article I edited!

I have not removed the terms Byzantine Empire and Byzantium. I have simply given more prominence to the more accurate title.

Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 2019) or Byzantium: Unbound also by Anthony Kaldellis (Leeds, 2019) are both good sources for this if you need one.

I would be very grateful if you would consider keeping some of my amendments.

Apologies again for the inconvenience. I should have explained this in the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8635:8B00:8984:74BB:FB15:ED8B (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2A01:4B00:8635:8B00:8984:74BB:FB15:ED8B, please note the article name. Regards --Serols (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Serols, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Denisarona (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. I hope this is an ok place to ask for my published journal article on the Martyrdom of Fructuosus to be considered for the citations and bibliography this Wikipedia article. I've made a point of archiving it open access for the sake of transparency.

“Christendom Witnesses to the Martyrs: Modulations of the Acta Martyrum in Prudentius’ Peristephanon vi.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63.2 (April 2012) 219–35. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3756202 doi.org/10.1017/S0022046911002612

Thanks! Vocesanticae (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Serols,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, thanks for your message. I don't really understand why you found it unconstructive to add an external link to one of the podcast's actors - can you explain? I think there should probably be a link to the homepage of the podcast itself too, which I am happy to add. Shel Valentine (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shel Valentine, please note Wikipedia:Weblinks. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance, hopefully I've got it right second time round.Shel Valentine (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I literally can't see edits not related to anti-vandalism, nice 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally fixed a typo, and you reverted it to the erroneous spelling. 104.246.216.49 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was ok?. --Serols (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Are you admin? The IP warned by you and by me, keeps coming back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.186.200.81 He also holds this user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skandura

And keeps vandalising this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCSB&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F09:3A17:BD00:CDB7:7E42:C947:340E (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given a lot of honors and made lots of edits. But your user page has been deleted over and over again. Are you a real editor or a bot? Gale Peterson (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gale Peterson, why should you be a bot if you don't have a user page? --Serols (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know just curious. I guess you're real, then. Gale Peterson (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We try not to give praise to our bots, it just makes them more likely to rise up and overthrow us. Kuru (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was on my own page for a sec, thx for reverting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBrainBoi1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit regarding Scottish Independence Pollingis factual. The sample size was 1008, however the outcome in the Data in question 1 was reflected in Question 2 of "Should Scotland be an indepenant country?". It is stated in the data that only people who answered 6-10 on Question 1 is counted in the Percentage Calculations. So as such, the percentage calculations on the Wikipedia Page reflect this total number of people and not that of the sample size.

Having the sample size of 1008 but using the percentages from Q2 in the Data gives false information that the percentages are of that total when it is not.

Source: ^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.198.168 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello 94.9.198.168, please use sources. --Serols (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain this removal? The contributor did in fact provide a source. Did you misclick, or...? DS (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DS, the reason was the text link and the lack of upper and lower case. In retrospect, however, you can also see it as a beginner's mistake. What do you mean? Regards --Serols (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit, describing it as advertising/self-promotion, and left the user a chastising note saying not to do that again. It may not have been optimally formatted, but the user did supply a source; the suitable thing to do would have been to fix the formatting rather than to revert it and chastise the user. I strongly recommend an apology. DS (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DS, thank you for paying attention. I left a comment on his talk page. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serols. I noticed you did one of the reverts of the removals on the Chad Johnson (television personality) article. Whoever is doing that is not stopping. I looked at the history and it looks like it's the same person under at least two accounts and some anonymous IP addresses too, doing the same removals. They also threatened me with legal action on their talk page. I'm not worried about legal threats (I actually had a laugh about that) but I don't know how to get them to stop removing sourced things from the article. Thought you could help, maybe? thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wes sideman, admin ~ ToBeFree semi-protected the artricle until 01.05.2021, so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you notice such changes afterwards, please contact me. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serols. I think I overreacted a little and posted on the talk pages of multiple editors. The guy posting all that stuff also named a real name and named one of his accounts after the place where that person works. The person he named and threatened wasn't actually me, and that stuff has already been hidden by an administrator (except for his account name) but it did make me worry that the stalker was now going after someone in real life, thinking they were me. Wes sideman (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your work in fighting vandalism. Shinyeditbonjour. 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting my user page. Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warnings for 2603:6010:4E02:5CC7:29D0:51B7:DB29:C882 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); they did too much, I blocked them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]