User talk:Markoulw

Hello, Markoulw. 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 COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ferrolens has been accepted

Ferrolens, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

etothepi 👽 ^(u)•(t) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of page "Quantum filed of magnet"

Dear Editor Sir Lithopsian,

This page refers to a recent discovery made and published on magnetic fields using the device ferrolens and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development.

It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and I was in the process to evolve and expand it.

Please reinstate and undelete the page "Quantum field of magnet" in its previous state.

If the revert will not be undertaken by the Senior editor in the next 6hours period I will revert the page so it can be further edited and expanded in the future. I will keep the physics-stub category though until the page is expanded sufficiently.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw

Markoulw (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats, nice. That's not how WP works, I'm afraid. You are welcome to revert changes made by any other editor, but the recommended course of action is bold, revert, discuss and not edit war - in other words, when someone reverts one of your edits, don't get into a war about it, but open the subject for discussion. The correct place for such discussion is the article talk page, although the talk page of a newly-created article is unlikely to be visited. A more formal approach would be to reinstate the article and open an AfD, a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Possible outcomes would include a redirect rather than an outright delete - or keeping the article. Before going that way, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's definition of notability which may not conicide with your own personal feelings or the normal expectations in your field. Just for the record, please read WP:COI and consider its implications for you, as explained in more detail at the top of your talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Senior Editor Lithopsian,

No. Respect. I was merely waiting for your response to my explanations of why this separate page is important before I do anything. Sorry, to see that you feel that you were threatened by me . On the contrary my intentions were to respect your decision and wait for your reconsideration after the explanations I have given to you, but I can not wait indefinitely. I now have an expanded version of the page "Quantum field of magnet" I will update it with and kindly ask you to review and reconsider.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw Markoulw (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Quantum field of magnet

Hello, Markoulw,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Quantum field of magnet should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 02:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum field of magnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real-time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia

A couple of things that are important to understand about Wikipedia:

1. Discussion are decided on editor consensus, not credentials (Wikipedia or otherwise) or experience. Meaning, Lithopsian does not have more authority on Wikipedia content than Newslinger, and neither do you. Of course, anyone can build a good reputation over the years for intelligent, well-reasoned contributions, or list their credentials on their userpage, but they cannot use their credentials or experience to 'win' a discussion. For more information, see WP:EXPERT, an essay which contains useful advice for expert editors.

2. It's normal in my experience for editors to comment on deletion discussions even though they wouldn't ordinarily edit in that area. Don't take it personally.

3. In regards to your complaints about Newslinger baselessly accusing you of a conflict of interest... I'm sorry to say this, but they have a point. Most of your edits are to pages (Ferrolens and Quantum field of magnet) implicated in this discussion. Your username is similar to one of the authors of the primary paper.

4. Finally, if the article is deleted, don't take it personally. Move on, edit something else, and if the subject is really a hot topic in academia, more papers will follow and you will one day be able to recreate the article with adequate sources.

Thanks for understanding. Tera TIX 12:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ferrolens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferrolens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrolens until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Ferrolens, you may be blocked from editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ferrolens, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Read through the links others have given you - your comments here are wholly unacceptable and you have been previously warned. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Sandstein 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment here. Sandstein 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unBLOCK: Markoulw: Based on the above screed, and a review of your contribution history, which leads me to conclude that you are on Wikipedia only to promote the apparently very questionable research of one Mr. Markoulakis, who I assume is you or a relative, I am indefinitely blocking you from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC). Because you breached half of WP policies by an attempted outing with your little comment above WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:HA AND I DISPUTE YOU AS AN WP ADMINISTRATOR. YOU SHOULD BLOCK YOURSELF! Markoulw (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markoulw (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the directions in the unblock request in order to request an unblock, what you are doing now is embedding your comment into the block template. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 2 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

@Markoulw: Based on the above screed, and a review of your contribution history, which leads me to conclude that you are on Wikipedia only to promote the apparently very questionable research of one Mr. Markoulakis, who I assume is you or a relative, I am indefinitely blocking you from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC). Because you breached half of WP policies by an attempted outing with your little comment above WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY AND I DISPUTE YOU AS AN WP ADMINISTRATOR. YOU SHOULD BLOCK YOURSELF! Markoulw (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Markoulw (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 23:37, 2 August 2018 (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.

Note that this user is now in danger of being banned under WP:3X due to continued violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

You are not giving me the opportunity to defend my contributions to the WP "ferrolens" article on the active Afd discussion. This is immoral and called censorship and discrimination. All other excuses for banning me are irrelevant at this point where the Afd is running and could easily interpreted as an orchestrated attempt to mute me out of the Afd discussion. You have deleted all my posts on the specific Afd and then banned me with some lousy convenient excuses about offending you personally because I spoke out the truth about your unaccepted behavior to newcomers inconsistent lies and non existing arguments and harassment policy violations and in general rude and unfriendly behavior both form editors and administrators. If you continue not allowing me as the major contributor of the WP article to participate on the discussion and holding me outside the Afd at least until the Afd is finished I will report to Wikimedia, each and every one participating in this masquerade, and will hold you personal responsible for what will happen next. You have been warned. Markoulw (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As before, you have not addressed the reason for your block in this request. I am declining it. If you continue to make such unblock requests, you risk losing the ability to edit this page, making it even harder to get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (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.

Formal Complain to Wikimedia

Maybe you should reassess the people which you give the right patrolling your pages and making arbitrary decisions for deletions of article and in general your procedure mechanisms of doing so and harassing newcomers. These are amateurs at best and should not have such power given specially when it comes to science articles and most of them don't have a glue. However a user like Newslinger, could ever peer-review a science article and propose it for Afd really escapes me...

Also the Afd procedure is a parody... How, this can be regarded as a general WP consensus tool when you give the right to people who edited the article for deletion to participate on the Afd? Obviously their opinion is biased. You should fix that in the future. Also consensus with less than 10 participants of the Afd can not be representative for WP in my opinion and make a rule that AfC articles not to be allowed to be proposed for Afd or prod deletion only for mandatory re editing.

I did my best to re edit and reform my articles for NPV and answered with valid arguments in the article talk pages all the issues they have set without any counter arguments on their behalf presented or suggestions.

Without asking me to make any edits or edits by themselves they rushed in on a first Afd and deleted my "Quantum field of magnet" (autoedited) article. Then they marched in to AFD delete my second article (nothing to do with WP just personal dispute reasons, many of them past initially the article clean) "Ferrolens" (AFC article for already three months now!) and its now under "discussion" from the same people who deleted my first article.

COI or not COI as long a NPV is made in good faith and willingness to do any suggested edits I would have been asked for, but they didn't just the plain AFD parody and irrelevant to my complaint here which refers to WP general policies and damaging attitude and arbitrary decisions and incompetence of some inflammatory editors and administrators of WP which are ill given the power and permitted to vandalize WP AFC articles and hares newcomers discouraging them.

I can not understand how a newcomer user Newslinger, without any full article editing and debuted in Wikipedia just at April of 2018 and since then did only patrolling and after my AFC ferrolens article passed clean through three Senior Editors II and an WP administrator, and without any other major edits on the article afterwards, can propose the article for AFD?! This is disrespectful towards the Senior Editors and administrators who passed the article clean and just a personal dispute with me. Markoulw (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ______________________________________[reply]

Wikimedia does not decide who has administrator powers here, the community as a whole does. While we welcome users with knowledge in various fields, being an expert in a subject gives you no special status or rights here. You must collaborate with everyone here regardless of their level of expertise. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to post your research; Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject that indicate how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. If you just want to post your research or expertise for the world to see, there are any number of more appropriate forums to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________

And where may I ask does the WP "ferrolens" article does injustice on your above mentioned points? I have reported solid and self-evident based facts (for example you don't have to have any academic proof to see that it is a lens with lights around it) and operation description of a more than notable device which exists over 10 years now and has a valid presence in the public domain and recently in academia (whereas other similar existing WP articles don't have any academic references). This device is called ferrocell or else ferrolens and is closely related with the Helle-Shaw cell WP article.

I included all related academic research I could find with priority the completely dedicated studies to the ferrolens/ferrocel device in a short concise way which a normal physics reader can understand. I have linked the article with related terms WP articles. It is a small informative concise article rich in media references. I even included video demonstrations (creative commons) which were IP addressed taken down. Where is the NPV violation here? and what about COI from third-parties roaming WP?

So please spare me your wisdom about WP policies and WP community, and let's talk rather of arbitrarily decisions of hot headed editors messing up totally normal articles and leaving total rubbish untouched. What about that?

Surely WP in my experience is not a fair-play place and the whole premise of anyone unfit which can edit and judge anyone and even harass him/her under some BS WP medal or title or not given to him/her playing God, is really a mess and more like anarchy.

Markoulw (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a volunteer project, people choose what they want to work on, when they want to work on it. Some articles like Barack Obama get much attention due to their subject matter, while other subjects get little to almost no attention until someone chooses to work on it. Since you state you are not interested in hearing any more about Wikipedia policies and community, though, I will respect that decision you made. Reading your statement above, it sounds like Wikipedia isn't for you. As I indicated, there are more appropriate forums for you to do what (I think) it is that you want to do, some of them may be listed at WP:OUT. If you should change your mind about Wikipedia, you are welcome to make another request. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Markoulw (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

You are now banned from Wikipedia, under WP:3X. No admin may lift your block without community consensus. --Yamla (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for active blocks. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is to be used to discuss getting your block lifted. That's all. --Yamla (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Given that the banning policy says CU evidence should be involved before such a step is taken, can you comment on where CU evidence was involved? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says "should typically be involved". There's no reasonable doubt in this case, see the sockpuppet investigations. If you disagree, you are free to remove the ban notice from the user's talk page. It makes little practical difference here in any case. Given the rampant abuse, I can't imagine any administrator lifting the block in the near future. --Yamla (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla and BU Rob13: I blocked a sock yesterday, I'll dig it out.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aimieimag and User:Bestdrily editing through the same range as Markoulw attempting to bust through autoconfirmed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask because whether there was or wasn't CU evidence involved needs to be clear, as it affects whether the ban is appealable to the Arbitration Committee in addition to the community. This was something I warned about in the discussion about that policy change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

- TNT ^💖 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22420 was submitted on Aug 20, 2018 19:47:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]