User talk:Sounderk

Disruptive editing[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Melirius (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your edits. It seems to me as a long time Wikipedia editor that the earlier version was better supported by sources, and your edits served to obscure what appears to be a lack of mainstream acceptance of this field. You have very little experience of Wikipedia so I suggest you read WP:FRINGE and discuss any substantial edits on the Talk page before making changes to the article. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It proposed only 4 dubious sources, including Bogomaz 15 years ago relied on Article 1995, which is 20 years. And two philosophers, who are neither psychologists nor sociologists. And it is invalid outdated message is offered in the preamble to the 2015? Now socionics is studied in more than 180 state universities, the number of academic articles and more than 2,500 practical applications of socionics in various fields. Therefore, the proposed changes are not significant according to the rules of Wikipedia.--Sounderk (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, discuss on Talk first. Also note WP:3RR. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did so. However, only in the tens article academic sources. Socionics many years practically used in aviation, astronautics, sports, pedagogy and other fields. I want to remind, that WP:NPoV. Due and undue weight: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

All the criticism, but criticism is correct, it should be placed in the section "criticism". Additionally, you must know that this is all the criticism that can be collected. And it's only 4 source, who always repeated in the presentation. Academic sources opposite to consider and use socionics more 2500. It should be understood that the ratio between these sources is 4: 2500. Therefore, they have very little value in preabbule article can not be placed.--Sounderk (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You urgently need to stop adding material from primary sources. You do not have enough experience with Wikipedia to make edits of the kind you are trying to make. Please discuss edits on the Talk page before making them. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Sounderk (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Sounderk. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Melirius (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Quenhitran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Socionics with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Quenhitran. See the original D. Lytov's text: "Practical Application of Socionics: Main spheres of application of socionics are almost the same as for the Myers-Briggs Type Theory (MBTT), except for one particular thing: MBTT deals only with intertype differences, while socionics also deals with intertype compatibility" http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html. And it's all. Deleted text is original research WP:PRIMARY with the distortion source. Thanks.--Sounderk (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Probably next time please leave a brief explanation in the edit summary so that I and other patrollers can get your ideas quickly. Thank you. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Q Valda (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk --Q Valda (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important messages[edit]

Special considerations[edit]

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

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.

—Paleo Neonate – 01:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Sounderk. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 01:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality policy[edit]

I noticed your message on the sockpuppet investigations page. Each language Wikipedia has its own policies and administrators. On the English Wikipedia, the policies that apply are WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 01:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]