User talk:Simpul skitsofreeneea

Passive smoking

As I understand it, you are annoyed by the phrase "passive smoking" and consider it a self-contradiction. However, people often do use that phrase, and Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, not what we would like them to say. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for more on why that is disruptive editing. Sjö (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see and understand the need for restraint: success is better than victory. Better to work within the parameters of the existing reality. Like a snail my eyes go in many directions to follow sources (and no brain, since sources are the thinking). Life inside a spiraling shell curving smaller and ending with very small article differences when writing is nearly finished, should that ever happen (should a french man/woman/girl/boy/dog not eat me). I am not in the driving seat for all others. Smokers are like drivers and snails are passive inside, transported as cargo (as escargot is the french for snail). But it is the problem of sauces, an exquisite flavor of sources, the reality of which is corrupted by a fraudulent chef: super heated tobacco leaf (a possible diet of thought inclusion for all). That was my concern. That the reality of the sources isn't a reliable reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) I'm in a restaurant, the waiter/waitress arrives, the meal service: betrayal. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Snails with the necessary sources, (a possible sauce) no argot (since it isn't the order) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that having been blocked at Simple for disruption at their article on passive smoking, and now you're over here and making undiscussed page moves and a lot of edits to terminology, after other editors have disputed your edits. I've warned you for using the talkpage as a soapbox and move-protected the article. Please slow down and find consensus for your edits. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't true. The page move was before the block. In any case the cause for the block if unreasonable is not a reason for criticism (and you think it is outside your jurisdiction so how would you determine if my complaint is true or not?). "Lots of edits to terminology" doesn't look like an error if the facts are relevant and not included. So what exactly is your criticism? I made the edits - do you see any problem with the edits? Obviously proceeding slowly is a valid direction for me to accept but you provide invalid reasoning (as the end justifies the means: though I see the means as not justifiable). Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked for edits at «Schizophrenia». With regards to «passive smoking» here, the sources are reliable and uncontestable. My text inclusion isn't invalid. My first inclusion showed information which was then contradicted by two other sources - so logically the 1st soure didn't see the 2nd and 3rd source information. That was my error, although the 1st source is reliable and still available online with incorrect infomation indicates I had briefly the same reliability as "the Lancet": which was the author there made a mistake. That author (an authority)...I don't detect any other fault (without reviewing I can't think of any I made). It is not logical to arrive here and criticize if you haven't verified my complaint against the block. You used presumption or suspicion of my failing which isn't a proof. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you showed up here after being blocked on Simple for your edits on schizophrenia, complaining inappropriately about a problem at Simple that can't be resolved on enwiki, and moved passive smoking without gaining consensus. Your edits to that article have been contested here and at Simple. You were warned for using the article talkpage as a forum for your views on terminology, and you've making a lot of assessments of what's valid and not valid without gaining consensus for those changes. Your preferred title has been contested, and you appear to be trying to make changes to your preferred terminology without actually moving the article. You are expected to gain consensus. You should not be making judgments about what author made a mistake in what source. You are expected to solicit the agreement of other editors, not draw your own conclusion. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Enfield poltergeist, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TwoTwoHello (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of schizophrenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. 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) 06:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Simpul skitsofreeneea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting the ground running

You've hit the ground running at en-wiki, with your edits on topics related to schizophrenia, but you need to be firmly in command of the key policies and guidelines here, chief of which for you are the policies on WP:Verifiability and reliable sources. Please make sure all your edits comply with these policies. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jogging my memory on the subject of WP:V & WP:P&G. I was doing these already, but I'll double (or triple: depending on the quota of energy input available at any given time per environmental noise which causes disturbance of flux states) my efforts to make sure we arrive at the expected destination ASAP. Thanks again Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of schizophrenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk

Discussion of article content is to be done on the article's talk page, not the contributor's. And please take note of MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. Paradoctor (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always leave an edit summary

Timeline of schizophrenia has numerous edits by you that lack an edit summary. Please, always leave an edit summary saying what you did, or why. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Yes, sorry about that I chose to try and provide the article information as swiftly as possible therefore making the most efficient service of an article. "Briefly describe your changes" but this is viewable in the link per each change so I couldn't appreciate why I would need to, and discussing the article changes in the summary is mentally time consuming and a cause of delay of change (if I can't think of what should be written or all the possible variation; the best version that should be shown) - is secondary to the needs of the readers (and myself included). I have made an effort to write summaries on the article I'm working on, though there is now a problem there so maybe I won't be still active if I become blocked, which I think is unreasonable per the talk page of that article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course one can find out what happened in any edit by clicking on the "prev" link next to it in the page history. But one shouldn't have to do that. One should see what happened in each edit in the edit summary on the history. Let's look at a series of edits you made:

Time	Change	Possible summary	Critique
21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	`ofPiers` → `of Piers`	word spacing
21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	`responsile` → `responsible`	spelling
21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	`[https://archive.org/details/dsm-1/page/n105/mode/2up?q=schizophrenia Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Mental Disorders]-1 → [https://archive.org/details/dsm-1/page/n105/mode/2up?q=schizophrenia Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Mental Disorders-1]`	improve wikilink	Even though you were right there, you didn't fix the adjacent `p.93-4` → `pp. 93–4` (pp for multiple pgs; dash; space after period)
21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	`1911: published by` → `1911 by`	rm "published"
21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	`[[World Health Organization]][[Geneva]]` → `[[World Health Organization]]: [[Geneva]]`	punctuation	Standard style is city: publisher, you have it backwards
21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)	rm `<ref name="ox">{{cite encyclopedia \|title=Schneiderian first- and second-rank symptoms \|encyclopedia=Oxford Reference \|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100446318}}</ref>` and ins item in bibliography	move ref to bibliography

You say that you are trying to be swift and efficient, but the few seconds it would have taken to enter edit summaries such as those I've proposed here would hardly cost you anything, and they would be part of the page history forever, so, years from now, if someone wants to know, "when did ref name 'ox' become a bibliography item?" they'd be able to find it, in your words, more swiftly and efficiently. Yes, you should leave an edit summary with every edit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking third opinion on Westall UFO page

Posted here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThird_opinion&diff=1194105737&oldid=1194006745 Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, input at talk page. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timeline of schizophrenia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of schizophrenia 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/Timeline of schizophrenia 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 until the discussion has finished.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page blocks

Simpul skitsofreeneea, you write here that ""because of the nature of the subject it would be difficult to find sources". In such a situation, WP:5P5 does not mean that unreliable sources will have to do since there's nothing reliable. I understand the "editor exhaustion" that has been caused to experienced editors by attempting in vain to get through to you with explanations of our sourcing principles, and by your overwhelming the article talkpage with long posts. You have been indefinitely blocked from Westall UFO and Talk:Westall UFO for disruptive editing, failure or refusal to get the point, and bludgeoning. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 12:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

That is irrelevant. I stated the information in the article is not the information from the sources. That is the problem that I indicated, which is prohioited by OR. Whether or not yoiu think that I am stating something in that response to a revert the reverting editors returned not sourced OR information to the article is the problem. So my expectation is that editors would want to do something about that problem. I already explained abundantly this situation in Talk and have filed a notice @ Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard ‎ 16:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:33, 10 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The editor stated "abuse of editing privileges" but how this is relevant to me I don't see any infomration on: I am not a privileged editor, and the blocking editor is probaly the privileged editor, I am just an editor not a privileged editor, what exactly does his reason for block mean? It doesn't have any relevancy to my activity. The reason is as I already stated on the ANI talk page: I made changes to stop OR being in the article, no-one found any evidence that I was wrong and no-one investigated: proved/disproved that I was wrong to remove the OR from the article, so the claim of disruptive editing isn't proven. All the blocking editor did is stop the discussion, after some other editor claimed without evidence of my choices being wrong therefore my choices being disruptive, that my work on a different article Timeline of schizophrenia was bad, and used a fringe theory page to introduce that discussion, which isn't where the discussion could have begun in the first place. No discussion was made about the Timeline article and all editors did was criticise me. My comments were on the subject of the article in the ANI discussion. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you see nothing wrong, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. The community is still discussing this and may subsequently decide to overturn the block but, frankly, I don't see that happening. Which means until you show you clearly understand why you were blocked, there's no chance anyone else will lift the block. Yamla (talk) 22:30, 10 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.

You expect me to understand, but what I'm stating is the editor used the words for a reason but the reality of the reason isn't there so I cannot proceed to understand the reason if the editor and disagreeing editors were being unreasonable. You expect me to understand unreasonable people which is possible but for some reason I am display incompetence at achieving the specified expectation. I don't expect you to see my reasons if the block is unreasonable and you agree that unreasonable is a legitimate cause for blocking. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

You and you co-editors created this reality (the block) but I know what the actual reality is. Disagreeing editors don't know what the reality is or know what the reality is and don't care. I stated a breach in policy, editors disagreed and blocked now I sit here with policy with me, and editors either fail to appreciate they don't know or are actively against the principles of policy. So I don't expect anything greater than the failure which editors have displayed by concluding against me as they have done. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure editors still involved with wikipedia won't disappoint me in this final expectation. As I mentioned if editors don't understand the policy (as is shown in the ANI discussion) I will have to file the process to the next dispute position, which I see there isn't one, although the principle of policy exists (which wikipedia policy/administrators don't recognize). That is all. Thanks for your continued understanding in this matter. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing with your useless ramblings instead of showing any self-reflection about your own conduct, I have revoked your talk page access. Read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]