User talk:Synsepalum2013: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 7 April 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Synsepalum2013, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please comment on Talk:Quranism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quranism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to Skull

I am a new editor and this is my first submission. I would sincerely appreciate any help on how to improve the article and get it accepted. Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Synsepalum2013. I removed the RfC tag as it isn't the right thing to be used here, and the article has already been reviewed and deleted. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 16:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cleanup, Rcsprinter123 and have a nice day. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello, Synsepalum2013! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Samwalton9 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pantheism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pantheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Voice to skull was accepted

Voice to skull, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

buff bills 7701 21:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 North American cold wave

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 North American cold wave. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Voice to skull shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I suggest you self-revert, and then DISCUSS the edit on the talk page. I have no wish to see you blocked from editing, but if you continue to behave in this manner, it is likely to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I note that the sources cited do not support the material you added - this is likely to compound the issue should you continue to behave in this manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What manner? It seems to me you are the one who started the edit warring. I changed nothing you write while you keep undoing mine. I strongly doubt you are going to win the case if you report me - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Voice to skull"

I noticed that my article Voice to skull was deleted without any reason given. I would really appreciate your explanation as that would help me understand the working of Wikipedia better. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Stifle. The reasons are listed here.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. The closing admin 'Stifle' merely responds to the consensus that emerges from the discussion, so Stifle deleted the article. Does that help you understand the way things work? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As my colleague has advised you, the article was deleted for many reasons which are given at the above link. This follows the consensus of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, Hrothulf. I am confused because I don't see any consensus on the deletion discussion page and my understanding is that if a consensus is not reached the decision is usually Keep instead of Delete. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but are you looking at a different page to the one I see? Only one editor besides you supports keeping and eight support deleting. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but I thought a consensus is not based on head count? What's Wikipedia's definition of consensus anyway, which I have failed to find out by myself? Thank you for your patience.

Wikipedia:Consensus should give you a starting idea. I would be interested in knowing by what definition of consensus you could see a keep closure on that discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Clearly a consensus is not reached in my case. Most people who voted Delete failed to back up their justification. Therefore IMHO the decision should default to Keep as Wikipedia tends to choose to err on the safe side when it comes to articles. My article is not perfect and I admit that but most articles on Wikipedia aren't either and they have been given the chance of improvement. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to agree with your conclusion. While just writing "delete" isn't acceptable and users must give a reason, there is no requirement for them to exhaustively evidence this. The reasoning was sound and the article was properly deleted. You can appeal at deletion review but I must inform you that such an appeal is incredibly unlikely to succeed. If your article was deleted whilst others you feel are of similar quality were not, that is only because we have not got around to those other articles yet. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed explanation, Stifle. Since I put a lot of effort into the article and did all my editing on Wikipedia and thus don't have a copy at hand, could you please put a copy of the article into my user space, as a subpage so I don't lose all my work? Your help would be sincerely appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the only contributor, you could ask the deleting administrator to email you a copy privately since you are the sole copyright holder, IRWolfie- (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Auditory hallucination shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Synsepalum2013, that you have confused how things work on wikipedia. When you add new text, the burden is on you to gain consensus for it. Please read WP:BRD for a suggested approach to editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Firewall (physics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Firewall (physics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Auditory hallucination. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. MrBill3 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overreacting by issuing a warning for "appear to be engaged in an edit war". But thanks any way for your concern. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Blood

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice to Skull

Thank you for your 'thank you' for my edit. The reason I changed your edit was to reflect the point of view of Wikipedia - which is one based on neutrality. I don't think the article should actually take the view of Carole Smith, as I believe it does now with your change. (Mind you, it seems like a fairly border line article, so maybe it will fail in lack of notability anyway). Best of luck with your edits. Angela MacLean (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voice to skull (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LukeSurl^{t c} 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice to skull

Just want to make sure you understand that there is no way you will move a declined AFC submission into article space when there's a 3-month old AFD on the topic as well. Even assuming for a moment that AFC accepts it, there's always the issue of the recent AFD. So I'd recommend maybe working on some other stuff. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I was about to post much the same message. In particular, edit-warring over a speedy deletion tag that clearly states that it is for "non-controversial or consensual" matters isn't clever at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and in any case, moving it will result in immediate deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite relevant and specific entries in policies or guidelines to support your claim. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not see the above link "immediate deletion" which takes you to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

Personally, I have been keeping an eye on your contributions because all of it seems like either misinformation, hoaxing, self-promotion (with a self-run organization) or incredibly fringe material with primary or poor sources. I have little faith that you will be able to create a useful Wikipedia page until such a time that you understand that the encyclopedia is based on WP:Reliable sources talking about Notable topics. The Voice to Skull thing is just one example of this disconnect from Wikipedia's core mission. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can worry about speedy deletion AFTER the draft is moved to the article space. Then the burden is on you to prove that it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." per CSD#G4.

As for your opinion about my contributions, unless you talk in specifics and details I'll just disregard it as biased. Anyway, your opinion is no basis for whether the draft should be moved or deleted. Common sense, policies and guidelines are.

- Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 ::Perhaps you did not see the above link "[[WP:CSD#G4|immediate deletion]]" which takes you to [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion]].
 ::Personally, I have been keeping an eye on your contributions because all of it seems like either misinformation, hoaxing, self-promotion (with a self-run organization) or incredibly fringe material with primary or poor sources. I have little faith that you will be able to create a useful Wikipedia page until such a time that you understand that the encyclopedia is based on [[WP:Reliable sources]] talking about [[WP:N|Notable]] topics. The Voice to Skull thing is just one example of this disconnect from Wikipedia's core mission. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
+:::We can worry about speedy deletion AFTER the draft is moved to the article space. Then the burden is on you to prove that it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." per CSD#G4.
+:::As for your opinion about my contributions, unless you talk in specifics and details I'll just disregard it as biased. Anyway, your opinion is no basis for whether the draft should be moved or deleted. Common sense, policies and guidelines are.
+- [[User:Synsepalum2013|Synsepalum2013]] ([[User talk:Synsepalum2013#top|talk]]) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)