User talk:Segaton

Hello, I'm Walrus Ji. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bhagyalakshmi temple, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Segaton, Times of India is not considered a reliable source. specially not for Historical claims. Please discuss on the talk page. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bhagyalakshmi temple; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the basic principle of Wikipedia is that facts are verifiable (WP:V), which means they are cited (WP:CITE) to reliable sources (WP:RS).

You MUST NOT add things that you personally believe or "know" to be true, as nobody else has access to that source of information, it is totally unverifiable.

In the case of this article, the cited source give one name for the deity. To add a different name, a further RELIABLE source would be required. I do hope this is clear: it is a general principle. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Halala (Web series), 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. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have left a detailed message on your talk page. Segaton (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Halala (Web series) 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/Halala (Web series) 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serols: slow down with Huggle. My edit was perfectly valid. Segaton (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The restore was wrong, look for a fewer version ('Racism and racial -> 'Ethnic relations) , sorry for the warning. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

~Asarlaí 21:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a case in which you are a party being opened for discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

Renat 13:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Compare to . My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Segaton, with regard to this edit of yours do you still remember which document were you referring to with "document titled under 'Conclusion'" in your edit summary? I'm trying to find the reference. Thank you if you can help! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: Jump to p. 28 here for "conclusion". Segaton (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to email someone on wiki, I expected that the article would go live and that others (in the community) would add to the article, no reason really for it to be in a draft format IMHO. IrishTV (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Philip Seymour Hoffman has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

You've received a formal, logged warning about edit warring in the WP:CT/SA topic area.

You have been sanctioned due to edit warring at The Bengal Files, while not engaging in discussion or explanation.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers I only added sourced content and updated the article. I am not aware if this area was ever under any Arbcom sanctions. Can you fix this error? Segaton (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Because you were not previously aware of the South Asia contentious topic area, I was not permitted to take any arbitration enforcement action more impactful than this warning. This is described at Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Warnings. Now that you are aware of the contentious topic, please be sure to comply with all our behavioral policies, guidelines, and best practices. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems you are unfairly treating the said edits. The policy is clear that such warnings are made when " inappropriate edits" occur. What was exactly inappropriate about the edits I made? Segaton (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

In the midst of an edit war, you picked out a version that you prefer and reverted to it, without providing any edit summary, and without engaging at all in the talk page discussion on the subject. That's inappropriate conduct. The merits of the content changes were not a factor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not restore past version but the sourced bits that I read days ago on the article. It is not surprising to see it was removed in a dubious manner without any meaningful input against it on talk page. Such disruption happens on every major article. Segaton (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers Seeing the ANI report and also the block on Computeracct (the person I technically undid and the one who reported me to you) for WP:COI, this warning no longer makes sense. Yes a lot of editors in contentious areas remove content they dont like or have COI with the subject, but I am sure that editors who undo problem edits shouldnt be sanctioned. Can you remove this warning in the light of the recent revelations? Segaton (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The merits of your edit's content ("undo problem edits") were not a factor, and Computeracct's COI wasn't info available at the time. I decline to remove the warning, and I urge you not to act similarly moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)