User talk:Axxxion

I don't think that your information are completely right . When editing an article please make sure you're telling the full story not one-sided-story

I make edits to existing articles without any pretence to tell "full story". Nobody knows the "full story" even about himself. Apparently, YOU do not even seem to know your name.Axxxion (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As to "your information are completely right", your grammar is definitely not right. And of course, i do not use any of "my information": i simply do not have any. Try to understand first WHAT exactly you are unhappy about. And then write here comprehensibly. And do not forget to sign too!Axxxion (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary samctions

Just a note to alert you that 2015 San Bernardino shooting is under discretionary sanctions, with a WP:1RR limit: All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#Move portions to other pages?

Did you read the closing rationale? We should limit the article's scope to avoid original research from now on. --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you used simile unless it's sarcasm. Anyway, a source must explicitly mention "Cold War II" or related names, not narrowly Russia–US. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Which makes me wonder if all the sources in the Cold War article explicitly mention "Cold War". Just sarcasm. On a more serious note, talking of terrorism, off-topic, i just meant that human nature tends to find its way through attempts to suppress it. Once you make an outright war look bad or even illegal, you get the much worse situation that we now have, where you cannot stop war because officially there is no war (who declared war in Syria?). Now each state in addition to an official army has another unofficial army of terrorists that do war by stealth. For war is the ultimate way to solve objective conflict in the human development such as overpopulation, lack of resources, poverty, pursuit of happiness and power, etc. Plus we have a slew of "security services" whose actual pursuit is to create maximum insecurity by stealth to maximise their share of a budget pie and political clout.Axxxion (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just abide to consensus and closing rationale, okay? Also, cooperate with Hollth; I think he's done a better job moving portions than I can. If you oppose the rationale, talk to the closer, or create a newer discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please note that I had to revision-delete your summary to this edit which contained a gross BLP violation. Please do not do it again. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Rus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR violation

You just made a 3RR violation (4 reverts in less than 24 hours) on page Madaya, Syria. Also note that your edits on this page are covered by community sanctions on Syrian war, according to which only one revert allowed during 24 hours. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But why is the article open to anonymous and newly registered users? Which makes it an easy prey for propaganda battles.Axxxion (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that article should be semi-protected because of vandalism by IP and new accounts, please report it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But this is not going to work because their edits are not vandalism and well-sourced. However, if you continue, you can be reported to WP:3RRNB or WP:ANI (community sanctions). My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Twitter now an RS to qualify as "well-sourced"?Axxxion (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You removed CNN [1], but it does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I made a report [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It does matter, as you appear not to look at and see what you speak of: the text and the source referring to CNN had been put by me and then i deleted a mere duplication thereof.

Madaya

I think you have been doing good work on the page but surely leaving the sentence 'The town has been used for anti-Assad propaganda..' , something like that, surely that can't remain. Its not npov. It reads like its written by RT or something.92.3.7.249 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on the Madaya page have now been undone by three users. You seem to have a certain point of view about a single event which you feel is necessary to write into the history of the town of Madaya, but the rules of Wikipedia are pretty clear that a few misattributed photos are not substantive to the town's history. You're more than welcome to create a separate page for this incident, where I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to vigorously contribute to. --Shawn.carrie (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please motivate your edits

Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Therefore, we motivate our article edits in the text entry field “Edit summary”, except the obviously minor and self-evident edits which we mark with a ‘m’ (‘minor’) in the space beneath the line for the edit summary.
Disagreements easily arise over article contents. There’s nothing wrong with such disageements, but they can only be settled in a polite and civil way if all editors declare their motives for edits on articles. On article Syria peace talks in Vienna, 14Nov2015,13:06, I’ve had to restore the article after an unmotivated edit of yours. On article Geneva Syria peace talks (2016), I’ve had to restore the article after unmotivated edits of yours on 4feb2016,13:24 and on 6Feb,14:03. It causes me work and trouble, which perhaps wouldn’t have been necessary if you had motivated those edits the first time.
Don’t now please give here, on THIS page, your arguments for or against this or that article edit: this is not the right place, article content disputes should be held on those article pages, via edit summaries, or on their article’s Talk pages. In that way, everyone interested in a specific article, now or in the future, can easily retrieve the discussions that are being or have been held over the article. In the future, please motivate your edits, not merely after someone begs for it but immediately. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My edits notes are sufficient.Axxxion (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As is clear from my edit comments, there are 2 general problems with your approach: you remove relevant and sourced material; write outright inventions, such as that statement "Lavrov CERTAINLY invited", or "conditions for talks", etc. Also you ostensibly source your inventions with off-line references to a Dutch newspaper. The only reason for doing so that I can think of, is to make it impossible to verify. Actually it is possible, as i have done once to debunk your inventions. I use the word "invention", as i find it difficult to call it POV-pushing per se: no obvious point is being promoted, essentially it is just nonsense with a detectable narcissistic slant.Axxxion (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I retrieved an edit of yours(of 2Feb) where you unmotivatedly reverted a motivated edit of mine, see here(9 Feb). That’s not cricket. I warn you now again: motivate please your substantial edits – most certainly when those are already obviously disputed. If you continue such non-cooperative, autocratic behaviour, I will have to report such behaviour to the Wikipedia community. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way: if you want to criticize my edits or whatever of my actions: fine. But it seems to me that the place to do that is on those specific article's pages (or their talk pages) for specific criticism/disputes, or on my talk page if you assume something general to be 'wrong' in my attitudes or approaches or whatever. (Don't discuss such issues (my 'faults' etc.) in this section, it is off-topic here, see section heading). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria peace talks in Vienna

Hello. You removed something from Syria peace talks in Vienna on 2 February with vague motivation. Please, read my question about that on Talk:Syria peace talks in Vienna#Staffan de Mistura. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pan–Orthodox Council

Thank you for creating Pan–Orthodox Council. I'm still trying to work through some of the changes made at the joint declaration article and will try and come back to that when I have time, but I wanted to thank you for creating that article. Will be interesting to see what happens. I know the author cannot be considered the most neutral authority on the topic, but a more recent source is here (ON THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH). I noticed that the documents will only be in Greek, Russian and French and nothing in English. I also noticed something on the joint declaration, but will pop that on the talk page of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth. I am not quite certain but I suppose the major documents will be available in English such as on the web site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, most of its flock live in the Anglophone countries such as the US.Axxxion (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Returning to this some months later, I see that there is a big list of who attended at Pan-Orthodox Council, and that presumably the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate (pulling out at the last minute) meant it was all a bit anti-climactic? Is there a verdict yet among neutral commentators on what it all means? Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Carcharoth. I have updated some. But it is early days yet to know how it will play out. That said, the issue of the Crete docs per se is relatively minor. The ROC did not want to play ball with Phanar in June. But now the plot thickens even more as Phanar is moving to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. Very unpredictable at this stage as voices are being heard in the ROC to pre-empt and grant autocephaly themselves. If Phener acts first, it will be nuclear with Moscow.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--MONGO 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:September 11 attacks for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. Talkpages aren't somewhere to present your views on how closely modern society resembles 1984. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But could you explain why my edits were expunged by an admin, and then a very similar edit was allowed, but very poorly sourced and containing obvious mistakes?Axxxion (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Katie^talk 20:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)