User talk:Network-nonsense

June 2023[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ecological stability, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Renewal6 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section is from a very recent paper and was added to three other wikis with identical information, most likely from the authors. The authors in question (Barzel) also has a track record of publishing work that is fundamentally flawed leading to scathing rebuttals both in journals and on prominent blogs. For instance :

"Silence on the relevant literature and errors in implementation" in Nature Biotechnology pointing out so many issues

nature link https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3185 pdf http://www.sontaglab.org/FTPDIR/bastiaens_et_al_kholodenko_about_barabasi_nature_biotech2015.pdf

or here another comment in PRL about Barzel paper

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.088901

... I could go on Network-nonsense (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Lourdes 11:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not promoting anything, the external links I have added are to pdf files for published papers that are hosted on academic websites and or blogs written professors, I am not the professors who's cites are linked to in my post - if the issue is with how external cites were linked, I will no longer do that and instead use the citation tool therefore removing external links from main text, regards Network-nonsense (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You didn't propose a new username as requested in the block notice. Also, see WP:YESPROMO ... what seems nonpromotional off Wikipedia can actually be very promotional here. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2023 (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.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Network-nonsense (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Deep-Zcience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I will no longer link to external websites in text but instead use the citation tool to reference papers, news posts, etc

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]