User talk:Rassnau952

Welcome!

Hi Rsanin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, Rsanin, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as RsR110097 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact both accounts you, but you never use RsR110097 again, not a problem. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theory of encryption of power has been accepted

Theory of encryption of power, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ortizesp (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Best regards Rsanin (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Wesoree. I noticed that you recently removed content from Constitution without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rassnau952. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

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

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I will be more careful with the guidelines. Nevertheless, for example, you removed singlehandedly a section from Actuality and potentiality where the books that are cited are both published by a first-rate publishing house in the UK and both books underwent double peer blind review by experts, (which certainly means that what was added to the section underwent double peer blind reviews) and then suddenly you, of whom I see no credentials as a specialist in Aristotle’s metaphysics removes my section in a flick of a mouse. I See in your talk section the complaints mount up because you suddenly decide to revert entries. Rassnau952 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is common that folks who are self-promoting get upset and lodge complaints when promotion is removed. Yes, you will see evidence of that on my talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the section you removed in a trigger-happy-I am the censor- kind of way, the information is contained in books published by a first-rate publishing house in the UK and both books underwent double peer blind review by experts, and then suddenly you, of whom I see no credentials as a specialist in Aristotle’s metaphysics removes my section in a flick of a mouse. Hence, even though the information you removed is solid, coherent with the entry, certified by experts in the field (who stated the books advance the topic at hand) of which, again, I do not see a shred of evidence that you are any kind of expert. As I said, I will take the guidelines seriously, but I do demand that in this case you restitute the information you erased without any true knowledge of what was contained in it. Rassnau952 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to put obvious promotion back into the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry for all this mess. If you proceed to erase the article I fully understand and support it. I simply wanted to say that the theory is solid, it has been treated and published by many scholars in books and journals (Q1) that are all blind peer reviewed, it has been discussed in many international forums, so the theory is young but thriving.

I simply wanted to put the bones of the theory out there for a bigger community to complement, even through critique, it was not my intention to create a vanity page, although I understand and see that in a way I did, and I am deeply sorry for it.

I do invite you all to google the books and articles that are included there, you will see they are important and widespread.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this Rassnau952 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am blocked I would appreciate if you pass on my message to the rest of the editors involved in the discussion.

Again, in case of doubt, I support the deletion of the article.

Thank you Rassnau952 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Theory of encryption of power

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Theory of encryption of power, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

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|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry for all this mess. If you proceed to erase the article I fully understand and support it. I simply wanted to say that the theory is solid, it has been treated and published by many scholars in books and journals (Q1) that are all blind peer reviewed, it has been discussed in many international forums, so the theory is young but thriving.

I simply wanted to put the bones of the theory out there for a bigger community to complement, even through critique, it was not my intention to create a vanity page, although I understand and see that in a way I did, and I am deeply sorry for it.

I do invite you all to google the books and articles that are included there, you will see they are important and widespread.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this. Rassnau952 (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am blocked I would appreciate if you pass on my message to the rest of the editors involved in the discussion.

Again, in case of doubt, I support the deletion of the article. Rassnau952 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry for all this mess. If you proceed to erase the article I fully understand and support it. I simply wanted to say that the theory is solid, it has been treated and published by many scholars in books and journals (Q1) that are all blind peer reviewed, it has been discussed in many international forums, so the theory is young but thriving.

I simply wanted to put the bones of the theory out there for a bigger community to complement, even through critique, it was not my intention to create a vanity page, although I understand and see that in a way I did, and I am deeply sorry for it.

I do invite you all to google the books and articles that are included there, you will see they are important and widespread.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this

Since I am blocked I would appreciate if you pass on my message to the rest of the editors involved in the discussion.

Again, in case of doubt, I support the deletion of the article. Rassnau952 (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. You are edit warring, you are not communicating with other editors, you don't seem to grasp either the tone or the formatting here, and there isn't a thing you're doing that's not promoting a scholar by the name of Sanin-Restrepo. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]