User talk:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

Welcome

Hello, Beautifulpeoplelikeyou, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou, good luck, and have fun. – LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Electronic harassment. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie you know better than me I'm not the one at fault here. I worked hard these last days to produce a fairly detached and comprehensible article for Electronic harassment according to reliable sources. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly confused about which view is the mainstream one [1]. The encyclopedia does not give equal validity or undue weight to fringe perspectives. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly making no sense when citing wikipedia's policies as you please. You are accusing me of pushing fringe perspectives when all I'm doing is describing the sources perspective. Why are you so blinded? Is it that you have wikipedian administrative friends? Well, I couldn't care less - sorry Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear reverts at 19:08, 04:14, 10:25, and 14:02. Unambiguous warning given at 13:39. Kuru (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed I had made more than three reverts in 24 hours. I wrongly thought the rule was simply about 3 reverts every day, rather than every 24 hours. My mistake. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe advocacy

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You appear to be here to Right Great Wrongs. If you carry on in your current vein, you'll be banned, so I suggest you back off and learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UHmmm... what? I'm just trying to help build the encyclopedia. Does wikipedia belong to you and your friends? Please, get a grip. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be humble, being a new editor. Belligerence will get you banned regardless who owns wikipedia, since you obviously do not understand yet how it works. For starters, please read carefully what is written in the posted message, including the wikilinks therein. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better be a belligerent new editor than a seasoned pompous idiot, wouldn't you agree? Please get off. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be in your life, but not in wikipedia. A yet another rule for you to learn is WP:NPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your addition to Psychotronics has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance in copyrights issues but, are you telling me I violated copyrights by copy-pasting (and also expanding at some degree) the following sentence: "the field dealing with the construction of devices capable of enhancing and/or reproducing certain psi phenomena (such as psychokinesis in the case of ‘psychotronic generators’ developed by Robert Pavlita)"?

By the way you're also wrong about the source I used to report that sentence. You mentioned this in the edit summary, but I had openly cited the The Parapsychological Association^[1].

Conveying the fact I'm in breach of the rules on copyrights I guess you could have at the very least simply rephrased that small paragraph for the good of the encyclopedia, instead of attacking me.. uh? Are you trying to be vendictive because of our harsh exchange of opinions on the Electronic harassment talkpage? I hope to be wrong.. maybe I'm misinterpreting this wholly. It's just that I don't like your attitude - sorry. I understand as a newcomer I may not grab the ins and outs of wikipedia, but your attitude is simply repelling. Concluding anyway, don't take this on a personal level because I understand it has to do with wikipedia as a whole. Keep well then.

^ Larissa Vilenskaya (1983). Psi Research: An East - West Journal on Parapsycology, Psychotronics and Psychobiophysics (p. 107), cited in Psychotronics - The Parapsychological Association

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement notice

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Have you previously used alternate accounts here? Kuru (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE Enforcement

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

banned from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at PS#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. 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 process described here. 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 of the above is unclear to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my recent edit on Rare earth industry in China will not be considered a violation of the sanction, since I just read that "The rare earth elements (or rare earths) are 17 elements that have magnetic and conductive properties. They are used extensively in electronic gadgets such as cellphones, and in national defense equipment". I swear it's random. It really is just random. In no wat I'm trying to violate the broadly construed aspect of my topic ban. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there's no, at least done on purpose, relation between the above edit and:

the fact rare earth minerals have magnetic properties and are used in national defense equipment
the fact I'm accused of promoting the idea that governments are torturing people via electromagnetic weapons

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We normally allow a newly banned user some room to make mistakes before we get grumpy so that edit won't get you into trouble but the edit to your sand box was a clear vio. This means that you are now close to the end of your grace period. The ban applies to all namespaces including your user area. If you have any doubts, don't make the edit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to reply to this. Do you actually mean you consider that edit I made at Rare earth industry in China a mistake? I'm tired of the attitudes of administrators here on wikipedia. If only I had time, be sure I would be willing to continue this discussion along with my topic ban but unfortunately I don't have all the time in the world. Wikipedia is beating me via quibblings, WP:TAGTEAMING and WP:EXHAUST. But hopefully I will be back some day to make my points: in the meantime feel free to consider me a topic banned disruptive editor, a conspiracy theorist, and feel free to delete my sandbox. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox

User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You ~~are free to edit the content of User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox during the discussion but~~ should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a template: reality is "My opinions on the matter are not welcome". Have fun destroying what wikipedia is supposed to be, LuckyLouie. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This diff states that you are "banned from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed." That means you are not supposed to be working on the topic in your sandbox. Further, your contributions include posts related to the topic at these locations:

Please stop except that you should remove all the RfCs that you seem to have started. It is ok to ask Spartaz about the topic ban at his talk, as you have done, but the topic ban is intended to prevent everything else. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought, not even for a second, that RfCing around the deletion of my sandbox, which I had created before the topic ban, constituted a violation of any rule. Also, if I recall correctly, the only edit I made to my sandbox after the topic ban, was an insignificant typo edit, one minute after LuckyLouie (the proponent of the deletion) crossed-out his statement "You are free to edit the content of User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox during the discussion..". I think I fell into a bad situation where rude tagteaming, touchy administrators, denial of critical thinking, and bad policies/guidelines on fringe topics got me away. All I was trying to do is contribute to better the encyclopedia, but the arguments I was involved in are part of a fringe topic, and unfortunately wikipedia demands fringe arguments to be treated with bias against any possible allegation of government' misconduct. Now, finally, I understand why my neutral version of the article was a problem. Have a good time. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

The next edit you make that could be considered in the slightest bit connected to your topic ban will result in a block. There will be no further rope or allowances made given the amount of disruption you have caused with forum shopping, faux RFCs and trying to work round the restriction. If this isn't clear enough, I suggest you either step away from the site or find another subject to write about. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may speak like that to your relatives and friends but not to me you worthless idiot. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he can speak to you like that, and every word he said is literally true: if you continue to push the boundaries, you will be blocked. Wikipedia has rules, administrators are here to apply those rules, you have broken the rules and if you keep breaking the rules then they will be applied and that is an end of it. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

This and this are absolutely unacceptable. Do not make personal attacks, or you will end up blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked under WP:NOTHERE

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

If you wanted to prove that you are not an single purpose account and disprove any accusations that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you would have actually edited articles on different topics, instead unproductively spending about a week turning your user page into a WP:POLEMIC. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

[1] Larissa Vilenskaya (1983). Psi Research: An East - West Journal on Parapsycology, Psychotronics and Psychobiophysics (p. 107), cited in Psychotronics - The Parapsychological Association

[1]