User talk:CognitiveMMA

Nobeah

Are you associated with Andy Williams, Nobeah Technologies or the Nobeah foundation in any way? - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing talk pages

Please have a read of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You should not edit your own comments after someone else has replied, and you must never delete, edit, or relocate someone else's comments. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Collective Intelligence (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I am still not seeing how this would qualify for a separate article as it could be covered under the others as opposed to creating a [{WP:CFORK]].

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. 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, go to Draft:General Collective Intelligence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:General Collective Intelligence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CognitiveMMA! Having an article 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! CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, CognitiveMMA. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you should read WP:COI and respect the procedures there. Any citations you have a COI with should be proposed on talk pages, and new articles that describe topics you are involved with should pass through WP:AFC. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you have gravely misunderstood what a conflict of interest is in this case? And if I disagree with you then who might I address this with? In my view a conflict of interest is created when an editor uses an article for self-promotion, not when an editor simply cites expertise in a given topic. Otherwise no academic articles could ever be published. Furthermore, wouldn't it have been more sensible just to review the article? Or to move it to the queue to be reviewed? Instead you put the article into draft. What exact changes are you suggesting be made before the article is published? Moving the article in this way without providing explicit guidance ... how is that not vandalism? CognitiveMMA (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you have gravely misunderstood what a conflict of interest is in this case? - I think it is rather more likely that the person trying to add their own name to the encyclopedia is the one who has misunderstood what a conflict of interest is. At any rate, you can get more opinions at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The exact changes I would suggest would be - 1) Stop trying to add your own name to Wikipedia and 2) Don't write articles about neologisms that are mostly unused aside from your own work. If you are here to improve the encyclopedia and not just to self-promote, make some edits where you have no professional interest to show us. MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get absolutely nothing from adding my name to Wikipedia. Please don't ascribe motivations to me that you believe you would have if you were in my place. Instead, I'm trying to spread what I see as a critically important idea. This idea is that nature has a kind of collective intelligence that is different from the computational collective intelligence humans can currently create. Nature's collective intelligence is able to solve the problem of collective optimization for any problem in general, rather than just a narrow range of problems. According to statistical and probability theory, consistently achieving a specific outcome without the ability to optimize is unlikely, especially in systems governed by a high degree of randomness or variance. Without this capacity for broad collective optimization, and therefore without the capacity to optimize any collective outcomes in general, whether poverty, sustainable economic development, climate change, AI safety, etc., it might be that none of the most important problems facing mankind can reliably be solved. My motivation is that having lived in Africa for years, I see billions of dollars of funding allocated in ways that is misaligned with achieving optimal impact on challenges like poverty. My motivation is that I see people suffering. I didn't coin the word "General Collective Intelligence". Secondly, does it make any sense that I would edit any other topic in which I'm not an expert? I'm here simply to address a critically important issue. What value are you adding through literally helping prevent spreading awareness about potential solutions to the world's greatest challenges? CognitiveMMA (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get absolutely nothing from adding my name to Wikipedia. Then stop doing it. I'm trying to spread what I see as a critically important idea. Wikipedia is explicitly not for that. There's even a policy specifically about that, which you can find at WP:NOT. The sections titled "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" are relevant here. You are simply trying to use Wikipedia in a way that it is explicitly not supposed to be used. If you want to save the world, the place for that is on your own website. I'm here simply to address a critically important issue. We've got a link for that, too. It is Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia - as you might expect from folks who are here to write an encyclopedia, that is frowned upon. MrOllie (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your words "then stop doing it", you've revealed that you've falsely ascribed a motivation to me, and you've revealed that you intend to continue to exercise a persistent negative bias based on that falsely ascribed motivation. I've provided every opportunity for you to take a more balanced perspective, but still you choose to act as a dictator. You've given your opinion and I've given mine. You might be a so-called expert in Wikipedia's editing procedures, but I'm a peer-reviewed and published expert in the topic itself. Again ... please let us collaborate in escalating this to whatever dispute resolution process is available. It's unreasonable, unproductive, and unhelpful to expect a preeminent expert in a field not to cite their peer-reviewed work when it is necessary to do so in order to clarify an argument. And secondly Wikipedia is expressly meant for spreading ideas, and ideas in published academically peer-reviewed articles don't constitute "original thought". CognitiveMMA (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a persistent negative bias against people who flagrantly ignore Wikipedia's policies, you've got me there. MrOllie (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I'm sure you will agree that if you respect this platform as you say you do ... please let us collaborate in escalating this to whatever dispute resolution process is available. It shouldn't just depend on your opinion. Particularly when you're clearly not an expert on the topic and when clearly there is a legitimate dispute. What is the next step? CognitiveMMA (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly when you're clearly not an expert on the topic That's fine, I also don't see anything like a preeminent expert in a field in the room. If you've actually been reading my messages you already know what the next step is. MrOllie (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again ... you rely on you opinions rather than fact. Ask Bing.com "Who are the prominent experts on the topic of "General Collective Intelligence" platforms?"

I'm asking for a dispute resolution regarding your editing process. I'm not asking for the next step in your biased editing process that I'm disputing. In my view, your editing (at least in this case) is ill-informed and irresponsible. But that's just my opinion. That's why I'd like there to be a wider deliberation on this issue. CognitiveMMA (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are the prominent experts on the topic of "General Collective Intelligence" platforms?" That's quite a narrow field! Have you ever heard the phrase 'damned by faint praise'? MrOllie (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical. That's the precise field this article is about! What other expertise would I be asking about? In any case that's neither here nor there ... what's the next step in addressing my complaint about YOUR editing process. If you value your integrity you should be willing to defend your actions. CognitiveMMA (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. MrOllie (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the entire thread again and cannot find where you answered this question of how I can address complaints about your editing process. I'm clearly telling you again that I didn't see where you answered that question. Please direct me to your answer for clarification, or please just simply answer the question. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to repeat myself. I will not address this again. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request?withJS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.css#top CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:General Collective Intelligence

Hello, CognitiveMMA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:General Collective Intelligence, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Human-centric functional modeling

Hello, CognitiveMMA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Human-centric functional modeling, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:General Collective Intelligence

Hello, CognitiveMMA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "General Collective Intelligence".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Human-centric functional modeling

Hello, CognitiveMMA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Human-centric functional modeling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve General Collective Intelligence

Hello, CognitiveMMA,

Thank you for creating General Collective Intelligence.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

You have misunderstood what a "Lead" is. It should be a 1-2 paragraph overview, see for instance Intelligence

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand what a "Lead" is. I just had a different opinion as an expert in the topic regarding what constitutes a 1-2 paragraph overview. Regarding the other comments (needs reorganization and might be about more than one topic) these are too vague. I have absolutely no clue what you are suggesting to be reorganized and what you are suggesting are the topics that should be split. Finally, the editor @MrOllie seems to have removed the article entirely. I entirely disagree with his comments. Wikipedia articles on scientific topics can't and don't all rely on review articles because in many cases there simply aren't any. I've persistently made efforts to address the comments made by Wikipedia editors, but this single handed removal of a well-prepared article rather than engaging in a back and forth dialog seems to be a kind of persistent vandalism of valuable content and a great disservice to the user community. How is this okay? CognitiveMMA (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not persistently made efforts to address the comments made by Wikipedia editors, you have consistently ignored messages, queries, and warnings about conflict of interest. Waiting a bit when a draft has failed and then creating it in article space anyway as an end run around the expected process for COI editors is not engaging in a back and forth dialog. Please make some effort to respect Wikipedia and its policies and do not simply use it as a venue to promote your own interests. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave an opinion. The facts are that if you check the history on that post, I responded promptly to every editor suggestion that I understood, and I promptly asked for clarification on the points I didn't understand. You didn't answer my question, how can I escalate this issue of your unproductive editing? If you respect the procedures then please let me know. Does it make sense that it's 2024 now and I first drafted the article in 2021? Furthermore, I would also like to dispute what you define as a COI editor. Under your definition EVERY expert is a COI editor. That's simply nonsensical. Academic publishing could never function this way. I would like there to be a wider deliberation on this topic than your unilateral deletion of a valuable article. Did you even find anything in the article to be incorrect or not peer-reviewed? Is there a more productive way forward? This seems silly and unhelpful. CognitiveMMA (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most experts aren't trying to add mentions of themselves to Wikipedia, so no, that is not an accurate representation of my definition. Your 'article' is largely a collection of unrelated sourcing stitched into an attempt to support a neologism in blatant violation of WP:SYN. I find the whole thing to be 'incorrect', from top to bottom, since it is plainly not in agreement with basic content policies. MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being an expert on a topic doesn't make someone have a COI regarding the topic, but it makes them have a COI regarding adding their own research into the article. Wikipedia:Subject-matter expert is a good resource for what to do in this case. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to a helpful resource. Are you by the way responding to the complaint raise The page Wikipedia:Subject-matter expert appeared to be a balanced and insightful take on the issue. However, it simply contradicted your point about adding one's own research into the article. The resource you cited stated that "Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline does allow an editor to include information from their own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party." I have done my best to keep a neutral point of view, but welcome any guidance from experienced Wikipedia editors in helping to improve in that respect. But MY LACK OF NEUTRALITY WAS NEVER RAISED AS A CRITICISM! On the other hand, the editor in question did clearly indicate a bias that any article I create should NEVER mention my work, regardless of whether Bing.com cites me first as a notable expert in the field, and that he would never allow the article to be published if he believed cited my work. An editor censoring this important information simply to exercise one’s personal bias in the way that has been done, and continuing to censor that information for years, particularly when that information is potentially important to so many people … what good purpose is served by this? Can you think of many things that are more harmful? Literally, this article is just describing the difference between a collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for some centralized entity, and a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants, and it’s saying that understanding the distinction is critical because the difference between the societal impacts of the two is potentially great. How is this point promoting any individual’s interests? CognitiveMMA (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Collective Intelligence (January 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:General Collective Intelligence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Can you please clarify which section of the article reads more essay than an encyclopedia article? Can you please clarify which sources are not secondary, reliable sources and and which are opinions or original research. Can you also clarify where the topic is not addressed from a neutral point of view or an encyclopedic manner? CognitiveMMA (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole draft reads like an essay but in particular the following unsourced section is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia..Implications for Collective Intelligence:This evidence challenges the one-size-fits-all approach of consensus. It underscores the importance of contextually adapting problem-solving strategies to effectively leverage collective intelligence in diverse situations. The collective intelligence field, while often leaning towards prioritizing consensus, is of course diverse. Researchers and practitioners adapt their methodologies based on problem specifics, highlighting the field's dynamism and adaptability. However, it's also critically important to distinguish the concept of a General Collective Intelligence platform able to orchestrate cooperation to select whichever problem-solving method is most "fit" in terms of optimizing collective outcomes, as opposed to a narrower collective intelligence method in which decision-makers effectively "compete" to impose their decision-making strategies suitable for a limited domain of problems (high signal to noise problems etc.). Theoretically, networks of interventions can cooperate to vastly or even exponentially increase their impact as compared to interventions that compete for impact on their own. Consensus fails in its ability to select the networks of interventions that are potentially capable of this increase in collective impact, since such strategies are currently too new and potentially too disruptive for consensus to be possible. Theroadislong (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:General Collective Intelligence has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:General Collective Intelligence. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Collective Intelligence (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seawolf35 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:General Collective Intelligence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I would be deeply grateful if you would identify the specific parts of the submission that "read more like an essay" and that don't rely on "secondary, reliable sources" or that contain opinions or original research. CognitiveMMA (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Draft:General Collective Intelligence, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be deleting the article and completely rewriting it. CognitiveMMA (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Draft:General Collective Intelligence. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Collective Intelligence (January 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:General Collective Intelligence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:General Collective Intelligence has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:General Collective Intelligence. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Collective Intelligence (January 29)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Seawolf35 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: WP:NOTESSAY, this draft has quite the history and many more declines than shown.

v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|1=I raised a complaint on the Administrator's noticeboard about my articles being rejected without justification, despite repeated requests for that justification, and instead of my complaint being addressed I was simply blocked. One of the original editors I complained about stated that I was clearly not here to build an encyclopedia since he claimed I was merely here to cite my own work and that I had a conflict of interest. That was untrue as I have no conflict of interest whatsoever with my recent submission. I just think that it's a profoundly important topic that's effectively being blocked. However, though I pointed out that these comments were simply ill-founded the editors refused to provide any detail except subjective comments in response rather than objectively specifying the policies the article violated.~~~~}}

.

Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted a properly formatted unblock request. Please read and follow the instructions in the block notice precisely, and another administrator will consider a properly formatted unblock request that substantively addresses the reason for your block, instead of blaming other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the block was that I was accused of "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", the justification for that reasoning was that I had a conflict of interest and cited myself. Both were clearly and demonstrably untrue as I stated repeatedly with no response. How is clarifying this issue "blaming other editors?" CognitiveMMA (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator will evaluate your unblock request. I have no interest in arguing with you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make the accusation of "blaming other editors" if you didn't want to take the time to make a fair assessment of whether that accusation was true? CognitiveMMA (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen made a fair assessment and blocked you. Do you really want the blocking admin to be the one reviewing your unblock request? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 29 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I raised a complaint on the Administrator's noticeboard about my articles being rejected without justification, despite repeated requests for that justification, and instead of my complaint being addressed I was simply blocked. One of the original editors I complained about stated that I was clearly not here to build an encyclopedia since he claimed I was merely here to cite my own work and that I had a conflict of interest. That was untrue as I have no conflict of interest whatsoever with my recent submission. I just think that it's a profoundly important topic that's effectively being blocked. However, though I pointed out that these comments were simply ill-founded the editors refused to provide any detail except subjective comments in response rather than objectively specifying the policies the article violated. I have attentively read the policies and guidelines named in the block reason. I declare again that I have no conflict of interest and the article does not mention myself or any of my work. Furthermore, I had not resubmitted the article since opening the complaint. Therefore I don't see how any of the usual reasons for blocking apply: CognitiveMMA (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is exactly zero effort in your unblock request to address any of the multiple reasons you were blocked, or your persist and long term failure to cooperate with the community, or your conflicts of interest on this site. If all you're going to do on this page is whine about how bad you've got it, the admin corps will be happy to revoke you ability to edit this talk page as well. I would suggest reading the guide to unblocking and then resubmitting your request with a more thoughtful appeal that actually addresses the reasons for your block, but we both know you're not going to do that, so it'd be a waste of your time and my patients...and yet, hope springs eternal. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:15, 29 January 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.

Your draft article, Draft:General Collective Intelligence

Hello, CognitiveMMA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "General Collective Intelligence".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]