User talk:Transhumanistnerd0

Nko o moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Nko o. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it barely has any content. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nko u moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Nko u. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it barely has any content. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nko alphabet letters

A tag has been placed on Category:Nko alphabet letters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nko o

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Nko o, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to N'Ko script. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nko u

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Nko u, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to N'Ko script. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Transhumanistnerd0. Thank you for your work on David Bessis. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this biography; notability is, I think, primarily through the book, which has been the subject of several reviews, but I agree that this information is best presented on a page about the author.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wenitte Apiou page

Hi Transhumanistnerd0. Thank you for your work on Wenitte Apiou. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please do not include non reputable sources, unpublished work or similar. Reverting edits without explanation is highly inappropriate.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that once material has been removed due to lack of a reliable source, you cannot reinsert it without providing one. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information on this rule, which is one of our most important policies.--Srleffler (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wenitte Apiou, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please see WP:RS. It is inappropriate to revert edits without making a case for why you believe this is appropriate on the talk page. In particular you cannot use unreliable sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Goulsse alphabet, you may be blocked from editing. Unreliable and self-published sources should not be used Ldm1954 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

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; read about 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.--Srleffler (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did your third revert a couple minutes before I posted this warning. Please undo your revert. You do not want to be caught on the wrong side of the three-revert rule. This is a bright-line rule; it does not matter who is right in the dispute. No one gets to revert three times in one day.--Srleffler (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Platonist mathematicians

The article List of Platonist mathematicians has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Based upon discussion at WT:PHYSICS a concensus is that this page and partner, List of Platonist Mathematicians are inappropriate on multiple counts.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Platonist physicists

The article List of Platonist physicists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Based upon discussion at WT:PHYSICS a concensus is that this page and partner, List of Platonist Mathematicians are inappropriate on multiple counts.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Platonist mathematicians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Platonist mathematicians 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 Platonist mathematicians 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Platonist physicists for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Platonist physicists 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 Platonist physicists 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruliad Theory of the Universe, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruliad Theory of the Universe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:65sugg per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/65sugg. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Transhumanistnerd0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I argue that none of my edits violated Wikipedia policy and everything cited actual Wikipedia Policy. I understand and accept if all the pages were deemed not notable/ to be deleted and do apologize for any mistakes but dont think I have actually broken any rules to objectively be banned / have all the pages instantly deleted for no other reason. On the List pages 1. Consenus was not reached and I respected the discussion On DB: i did not interfere with other edits On self published sources: Per wikipedia guidlines they are acceptable On WA: this page was also reviewed and patrolled by multiple Administrators On Ruliad: I appeal to Wikipedia on Policy on the Notability of work by a certain subject being inherently notable due to the person who created it. All i did was remove prod and obviously would have accepted the deletion discussion On sockpuppeting: this was an honest mistake, but i think my goals are clearly to contribute constructivly to wikipedia and this ban feels more like a personal attack due to being defensive (which I beleive rightfully so) rather than any specific policy violation

Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the discussion below, you accept the abuse of multiple accounts. I would suggest taking the standard offer and re-applying in 6 months time with no more accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

. Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have a lot of problems -- for example, a poor interpretation of self-published sources as one's analysis of their own work is unduly self-serving and the material was challenged as a result so it should not have been restored -- and would likely have resulted in an eventual block if continued, but the primary reason you're currently blocked is the fact that this account is a sockpuppet account of a blocked editor. You've glossed over it, simply calling it an "honest mistake," but if you want an administrator to take your unblock request seriously, that's what you'll have to talk about and explain. You were indefinitely blocked in May 2023. However, you used two accounts to make edits recently, evading your block nearly 150 times. Can you clarify why you believe this to be an honest mistake? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see thanks for this response. As to the self published sources I dont see how anything was interpretation vs stating fact. If someone creates a work are they not the ultimate authority on the subject? As to the sock-puppeting policy I was simply unfamiliar with it, but I accept the block thanks for the explanation. Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is the ultimate authority of the work recreate, then we'd have to accept any self-published source. I may announce myself as the world's foremost export on Crumbalytics, a model of how delicious the crumbs of a cookie are in my mouth, but reliable sources have to provide significant, independent coverage of that for Wikipedia to care. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the specific claim. “I am an expert on x” no but “I propose X to be Y” or “I propose A to apply to Z” when its your own work feels perfecty valid to me Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of listsand List selection criteria.

Wikipedia:Notability Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusing notability with reliability is the big issue without those edits, but one we should probably table until such time you are unblocked. While I'd like to give you advice to navigate Wikipedia with fewer issues, since you're blocked for WP:SOCK, discussion should be directly on that point, and I don't wish to put you in jeopardy of having talk page access revoked by urging you into having a slightly off-topic conversation.

You should take PhilKnight's advice above; block evasion is a very serious infraction of the rules. Links to what a block means were provided with the notice on May 23. If you choose to make an unblock request after being away from Wikipedia for six months or a year or however long after not using Wikipedia or evading your block, your best chance of being unblocked will be to take full responsibility and outline how you will do better in the future. Saying that you didn't know and that everything you did was fine anyway will likely get a very poor response. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really seeking to be unblocked like i said i accept it, it is not that

Dewp to me I am simply pointing out flaws in your reasoning. Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But directly to the reliability point I started by addressing it, self published sources when talking about the subject are considered reliable by site policy. Removing that was not correct by the established rules. “X creation has X properties” citation, self published source is perfectly valid by Wikipedia policy. If it is not valid then the wording should be updated on the page to reflect the actual rules Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not helping. Come back in six months and follow the standard offer process. Try to understand why you were blocked in the first place, so that you can do better. Once you're unblocked, we can have a discussion about how and when self-published sources can be used.--Srleffler (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]