User talk:Berzerker king

October 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Jair Bolsonaro, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Brad v 01:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Berzerker king, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TFD (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Social Liberal Party (Brazil). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:INDENT your comments

Please indent your comments in talk page discussions. Not doing so makes the discussions very difficult to follow. Please read WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD. Thanks. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need some answers before I am ready to respond to your questions

You say that CNN routinely has stories calling Trump a Nazi. As I've said elsewhere, all I can find on CNN is Trump Jr. saying the Democrats are like Nazis. I see that an editor has commented on your edit request at Talk:Louis Farrakhan suggesting that you might not be a good faith editor. You can show good faith by posting several links to CNN stories calling Trump a Nazi.

And by either saying that the "left leaning radical Communists" you mention at Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil), which is an odd combination of adjectives, are either IPs or name them. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller:. I don't understand why you need me to answer questions before you respond to the requests that I have made? Is it not possible that you ask me all the questions you want while also responding to the requests that I made to you? I don't understand why there is a dependency, or why is it incumbent that you will ask me questions but not give response to the requests / questions that I have raised? You are welcome to ask me any question which you want, but please also respond to the questions / requests which I have made, in the meantime.

The use of "left leaning radical communists, as far as I remember, was made when somebody alleged me as being far right. In that context, it was sort of relevant. If I am mistaken about the context, please let me know and I will re analyze all the conversation that happened there and respond to you again.

The discussion on Louis Farrakhan page has absolutely no mention of "CNN calling Trump a nazi". Are you by any chance following my other discussions and carrying over the sentiments from those discussion into other edits that I am making? I don't think that is relevant. None of the editors have asked me to give citation regarding this. Has someone complained that I made such a citation? Please let me know so that I can address the complaint.

I hope that in addition to asking me questions, you will also respond to the questions / requests that I have made. I am still waiting for your response for the request for Social Liberal Party (Brazil) page, that just like the news I shared did not discuss the party, none of the other links did as well and I would like to remove them both. Please let me know your thoughts on that as well.

--Berzerker king (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louris Farrakhan's page is on my Watchlist as is NOI, as are thousands of other articles. You've made a claim that you need to prove to show you are editing in good faith or know enough about the real world to edit. Please give me some examples. The fact that someone called you alt-right isn't an excuse for you to claim that there are unspecified left leaning radical Communists editing. Doug Weller talk 06:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be right to assume that you are similarly trying to scrutinize those who called me a far right? And I don't understand why I am being asked to prove myself rather than the content that I am giving. The content that I proposed for the Louis Farrakkhan page is with citation. It is highly improper that the judgement is being passed upon me rather than the content I am proposing. Please let me know if you find any inaccuracy in the content that I have posted, or if you think that citation I provided is false, or if you think the content I proposed to be added to the article of Louis Farrakhan is incorrect. If you think that Louis Farrakhan did not lead chants of "death to America", then let me know so that we can discuss.

--Berzerker king (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing sourced text at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

You did it at least twice, the last time here.[1] I've quoted the source in my edit summary. why did you do this? Doug Weller talk 16:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-did the changes because my edit had gotten removed by the user Vanamonde not because of my changes but because he was undoing someone else's changes and he ended up removing my changes as well. I removed the change because I tried to open the citations, but none of the citations were available. They mention some book references, but the links themselves were not going to any book so I was not able verify them. By the way, that edit was not done by you it was done by some other user. I am curious Doug, are you following the edits that I am making? I mean, am I a target of some kind of investigation or something?

--Berzerker king (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I also have a question. Since the references given by that link are not accessible online, how did you verify whether the word "terrorist" was indeed used and if so, what was the context in which it was used or what was the book speaking of, or whether the book was free of bias or not? I am not able to understand how citations are being rejected and how they are being validated. It seems quite arbitrary and whimsical the manner in which selective quotations are accepted for categorizing groups which have right leaning views and those which are on the left. Is this subject even open for discussion that RSS is *NOT* a terrorist organization, or is this something that is not open for discussion at all? Because it would be highly unreasonable to demand that I site a book which says "RSS is not a terrorist" organization. Are we saying that just because some biased source called RSS a terrorist organization it has to be accepted like this forever? Please let me know what is the accepted criteria by which I can prove that RSS is not a terrorist organization. There has to be *some* way for me to counter this allegation, so please tell me what would you consider an acceptable proof for dismissing this allegation. --Berzerker king (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are online on Google Books, and in any case you shouldn't change sourced text unless you can show it's wrong. There's no reason to think it's biassed, and in this case the edit doesn't directly call RSS a terrorist organisation. And no, it's not unreasonable for us to expect you to find sources disputing the terrorist charge. That's the way we work.

And yes, I'm finding your edits questionable. It's common for experienced editors to look at editing patterns of editors. On the other hand, you are editing articles I follow so it's not surprising that I'm reverting you. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The content directly alleges that Hedgewar took terrorist training.

If you are saying that I need to prove that the sourced text is wrong, don't you think it is fair to demand that the sourced text be scrutinized and only accepted when it is proven to be correct? After all I don't suppose that you would be asserting that sources are to be all believed at face value?

And I didn't understand correctly. Are you saying that I need to find a source that says "Hedgewar did not take terrorist training" and only then you will accept for correction of the allegation that Hedgewar took terrorist training?

As per the wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" in such cases it has to be explicitly mentioned that it is the opinion of the writer that the training was terroristic in nature instead of stating it in wikipedia voice. I request that the correction be made and we explicitly mention that it is the opinion of the writer of the book that the training was terroristic in nature.

--Berzerker king (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on talk page. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Farrakhan edit request arbitration case

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]