User talk:Synsepalum2013

Welcome!

Hello, Synsepalum2013, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please comment on Talk:Quranism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quranism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to Skull

I am a new editor and this is my first submission. I would sincerely appreciate any help on how to improve the article and get it accepted. Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Synsepalum2013. I removed the RfC tag as it isn't the right thing to be used here, and the article has already been reviewed and deleted. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 16:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cleanup, Rcsprinter123 and have a nice day. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello! Synsepalum2013, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Samwalton9 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pantheism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pantheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Voice to skull was accepted

Voice to skull, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

buff bills 7701 21:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 North American cold wave

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 North American cold wave. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Voice to skull shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I suggest you self-revert, and then DISCUSS the edit on the talk page. I have no wish to see you blocked from editing, but if you continue to behave in this manner, it is likely to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I note that the sources cited do not support the material you added - this is likely to compound the issue should you continue to behave in this manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What manner? It seems to me you are the one who started the edit warring. I changed nothing you write while you keep undoing mine. I strongly doubt you are going to win the case if you report me - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Voice to skull"

I noticed that my article Voice to skull was deleted without any reason given. I would really appreciate your explanation as that would help me understand the working of Wikipedia better. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Stifle. The reasons are listed here.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. The closing admin 'Stifle' merely responds to the consensus that emerges from the discussion, so Stifle deleted the article. Does that help you understand the way things work? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As my colleague has advised you, the article was deleted for many reasons which are given at the above link. This follows the consensus of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, Hrothulf. I am confused because I don't see any consensus on the deletion discussion page and my understanding is that if a consensus is not reached the decision is usually Keep instead of Delete. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but are you looking at a different page to the one I see? Only one editor besides you supports keeping and eight support deleting. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but I thought a consensus is not based on head count? What's Wikipedia's definition of consensus anyway, which I have failed to find out by myself? Thank you for your patience.

Wikipedia:Consensus should give you a starting idea. I would be interested in knowing by what definition of consensus you could see a keep closure on that discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Clearly a consensus is not reached in my case. Most people who voted Delete failed to back up their justification. Therefore IMHO the decision should default to Keep as Wikipedia tends to choose to err on the safe side when it comes to articles. My article is not perfect and I admit that but most articles on Wikipedia aren't either and they have been given the chance of improvement. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to agree with your conclusion. While just writing "delete" isn't acceptable and users must give a reason, there is no requirement for them to exhaustively evidence this. The reasoning was sound and the article was properly deleted. You can appeal at deletion review but I must inform you that such an appeal is incredibly unlikely to succeed. If your article was deleted whilst others you feel are of similar quality were not, that is only because we have not got around to those other articles yet. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed explanation, Stifle. Since I put a lot of effort into the article and did all my editing on Wikipedia and thus don't have a copy at hand, could you please put a copy of the article into my user space, as a subpage so I don't lose all my work? Your help would be sincerely appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the only contributor, you could ask the deleting administrator to email you a copy privately since you are the sole copyright holder, IRWolfie- (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Auditory hallucination shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Synsepalum2013, that you have confused how things work on wikipedia. When you add new text, the burden is on you to gain consensus for it. Please read WP:BRD for a suggested approach to editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Firewall (physics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Firewall (physics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Auditory hallucination. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MrBill3 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overreacting by issuing a warning for "appear to be engaged in an edit war". But thanks any way for your concern. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Blood

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice to Skull

Thank you for your 'thank you' for my edit. The reason I changed your edit was to reflect the point of view of Wikipedia - which is one based on neutrality. I don't think the article should actually take the view of Carole Smith, as I believe it does now with your change. (Mind you, it seems like a fairly border line article, so maybe it will fail in lack of notability anyway). Best of luck with your edits. Angela MacLean (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voice to skull (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LukeSurl^{t c} 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice to skull

Just want to make sure you understand that there is no way you will move a declined AFC submission into article space when there's a 3-month old AFD on the topic as well. Even assuming for a moment that AFC accepts it, there's always the issue of the recent AFD. So I'd recommend maybe working on some other stuff. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I was about to post much the same message. In particular, edit-warring over a speedy deletion tag that clearly states that it is for "non-controversial or consensual" matters isn't clever at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and in any case, moving it will result in immediate deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite relevant and specific entries in policies or guidelines to support your claim. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not see the above link "immediate deletion" which takes you to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

Personally, I have been keeping an eye on your contributions because all of it seems like either misinformation, hoaxing, self-promotion (with a self-run organization) or incredibly fringe material with primary or poor sources. I have little faith that you will be able to create a useful Wikipedia page until such a time that you understand that the encyclopedia is based on WP:Reliable sources talking about Notable topics. The Voice to Skull thing is just one example of this disconnect from Wikipedia's core mission. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can worry about speedy deletion AFTER the draft is moved to the article space. Then the burden is on you to prove that it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." per CSD#G4.

As for your opinion about my contributions, unless you talk in specifics and details I'll just disregard it as biased. Anyway, your opinion is no basis for whether the draft should be moved or deleted. Common sense, policies and guidelines are.

- Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you won't take our word for it, you can always try to request deletion at WP:RFD. Make sure you specify what you're trying to do. Good luck. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. Seems to me speedy deletion is an easier process in this case than requesting a redirect deletion. If you don't object, I'll just go ahead with the former option per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6._Technical_deletions. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No admin will delete that redirect for you, not under G6, not with an AFD covering the (declined) material you want to move out of AFC. Not sure how many different ways you want us to explain that. I suggested RFD so you have an alternative discussion with other editors about the validity of what you're trying to do and don't have to just take our word for it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let an Admin decide whether the speedy deletion nomination is valid? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, how do you think I found the speedy to begin with? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I accept your decision regarding the speedy deletion nomination.

Rules concerning fringe topics

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Synsepalum2013, you and I have previously talked about Voice to skull. The discussion above suggests to me you are trying to bend the rules, to circumvent the previous consensus against your Voice to skull material. WP:CSD#G6 is specifically for uncontroversial moves. It cannot be used if there is a dispute. If you are planning to become active in editing WP:FRINGE topics in Wikipedia you should be aware that an Arbcom case deals with these matters. Admins are given enhanced authority to be sure that Wikipedia policy is followed in these areas. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the notification. I'll just go the controversial move route then. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notification

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [1]. Note that I haven't asked for any action to be taken against you - I'd advise you not to make a fuss however, as other people may not feel the same way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I have closed two RFCs on your favorite AFC article, and another admin has closed another. RFCs are not for AFC articles. Your article was already created then deleted at WP:AFD, so the community has already decided that the article doesn't pass notability requirements and is a fringe science topic. The new article is not different in enough ways to warrant inclusion. You seem to have a problem listening to others, and your editing has become disruptive (see WP:HEAR). If you continue to abuse the RFC or other processes, you will be blocked. You have warned many, many times. This is your last warning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no matter how many time you warn me, you have to find me in violation of applicable policies or guidelines in order for your warnings to hold water. Otherwise it's just vapor.

Secondly, prove that my editing has become disruptive otherwise you can't justify your claim that I have violated WP:HEAR.

Thirdly, the fact that my article has been declined by AFC and deleted by AFD does not indicate that the community has reached a consensus regarding my article unless by "community" you mean one or two reviewers and a few interested parties. I have the right to bring my article to the notice of a wider public.

Finally I consider my article notable enough and no one has ever proved it otherwise. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate you. I've told you the consequences. How you proceed from here is up to you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance 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. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what authority you have for taking this action? As far as I can tell, MfD is neither policy nor guideline of Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, you would find that MFD is the repository for "everything else" that doesn't fit into the primary categories. To have a discussion on an AFC article deletion, MFD is the proper venue and has been since AFC started. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with MfD and I don't have time or energy to look into it right now so I choose not to respond. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, The way I look at it, there is no reason to delete anything on Wikipedia unless it's in violation of any policy or guideline on Wikipedia, or per legitimate request. Therefore unless you can prove it's necessary to delete any article or draft, the default decision should be Keep. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a narrow view, you won't enjoy your time at Wikipedia. It is all based on community consensus, every policy, every guideline. And the criteria is always that something has to demonstrate that it passes the policy that governs it, not that you have to prove it doesn't. There is an old expressing, you can't prove a negative. ie: you can't prove extraterrestrial aliens don't exist, but if you had evidence, you could prove they do. Things like that. The scientific method, etc. If you goal is simply to publish a limited number of articles on theories that are outside of the mainstream, then your goals aren't compatible with the goals of Wikipedia and you will find yourself in constant conflict. Again I will note that you have already been given the discretionary sanctions warning above. In layman's terms, that means you are on thin ice when it comes to the areas of fringe science, and any admin can block you without warning if you push your luck even a little. The discretionary sanctions were setup because we have a lot of problems with people pushing their point of view in that area, so the threshold for getting blocked is very, very low. My personal suggestion would be to ask more questions at some place like WP:Teahouse and stop trying to figure a way around the system here. Of course, you can do whatever you like, but I don't think you realize how close you are to getting indefinitely blocked by the constant move requests and attempts to fight or bypass the normal channels, so I wanted to let you know. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. So am I. But when you make groundless accusations you are only discrediting yourself. For example, I have only made two move requests so far, instead of "constant move requests." Also don't forget that we are supposed to be bold on Wikipedia so I am free to explore alternative channels as long as I don't violate policies and guidelines. And that's my understanding. As for the discretionary sanction warning I received, it's just a vague and informational FYI without anything substantial against me. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made several comments to the effect of moving as well, EdJohnson gave you the warning, I closed two processes you started after that warning. Again, it isn't really debatable, these are facts. It all boils down to the fact that Fringe science is a problem area with a short fuse at Wikipedia and you are pushing beyond the limits, and I would prefer to not have to block you, but will if needed. That isn't vague at all, that is factual. You assume you understand how things work, but you don't understand at all. That is fine, it takes a while to learn the system, but I simply suggest you don't assume, and instead learn and ask questions. No matter how "right" you think you are, that won't stop you from getting blocked or staying blocked. If you are wise, you will understand I'm trying to help you. If not, then I can't help you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get your point. So far I haven't done anything blockworthy but if I push my luck I might get onto thin ice. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the ice is extra, extra thin in certain topics, like the Middle East, Fringe Science and other topics that have a history of causing large groups of people to get into dragged out fights. Admin are given insane amounts of leeway to enforce "order" in areas like that. Right or wrong, that is just how it is. Wikipedia is complicated in many ways, and many of the policies aren't intuitive. Some rules might even sound "dumb" at first, but after you've been here a while, you learn WHY they are in place, and they make more sense. I linked the WP:Teahouse because that really is a great place to just ask questions "Hey, I want to do $x, what is the process for that?", "Will I get in trouble if I do $y?", that kind of stuff. Super nice and helpful people. Once you have been here a while, you will understand why those articles are going to be deleted. It's fine to disagree, but policy is actually pretty clear about it. After a while, you will learn how to source and write on highly sensitive topics like that, and you will have better success. Simply arguing will get you nowhere here, too many people ARE experts on the policies here, and every discussion is usually closed by someone who also is, so only rock solid policy based votes are considered, everything else is literally ignored. The "votes" aren't even votes. You can have 10 KEEP and 3 DELETE votes, and it gets deleted. It isn't about the number of votes, it is about the strength of the arguments as weighed against policy. Sounds nuts to someone new, I get that, but if you stick around, it will all start to make sense. I suggest working on slightly less ambitious projects at first, such as improving some of the existing articles on topics you like, to learn the ropes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Seahorse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Synsepalum2013/sandbox/Voice to skull

User:Synsepalum2013/sandbox/Voice to skull, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Synsepalum2013/sandbox/Voice to skull and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Synsepalum2013/sandbox/Voice to skull 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. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been informed of the authorisation by the Arbitration Committee of discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science. You have continued to repeatedly re-create versions of a page which you know full well has more than once been discussed at deletion discussions and deleted. You have also edited disruptively in other places in connection with the page. It appears that your only purpose in editing Wikipedia is to publicise your opinions in this area, and for that reason an indefinite block would not have been out of the question. However, instead of imposing such a block, I am willing to allow you a chance to make constructive edits in other areas. You are therefore allowed to continue editing, but subject to the following sanction.

You are topic-banned from all editing in relation to fringe science and pseudo-science, broadly construed, including "Voice to skull", "electronic harassment", and similar topics. This ban applies to all editing, on any page, whether article, talk page, or any other page.

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 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.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are groundless and you don't have the right to delete a page on my user space without citing any policy/guideline violation. I reserve the right to appeal the sanction. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a legal process and you do not need to reserve the right to appeal when you've been informed (above) precisely how to appeal. Perhaps you should read the sanctions and opinions of others more closely. GDallimore (Talk) 08:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For review

Can you review my article and is this article appropriate ? link :- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Veron_%28Software%29 Nip123 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nip123: Sorry I am not a reviewer. You may try the help desk instead. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:False flag

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:False flag. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Snakebite

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Snakebite. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Venomous snake

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Venomous snake. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Synsepalum2013! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]