User talk:V.L.TDAE.

{unblock|1= to Acroterion: I can not directly reply this to Acroterion as the admin has blocked admin comments. I don't Understand how the next edit was disruptive, I reverted a content which was deleted by another user, which resulted in a block. thus my point why block me after I obeyed the rules.V.L.TDAE. (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

To admin deepfriedDokra :

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).

V.L.TDAE. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your consideration on this subject. To the question you asked : "What constructive edits you would make after the unblock?" -I would expand esoteric articles about quantum physics, Pure Mathematics and computer science in which some of them require development in adding content and accuracy.V.L.TDAE. (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2022 (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.

deepfriedDokra, I don't understand your comment.

You removed Yamla's decline. Please feel free to add back the content you added while doing so. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to correctly format unblock requests. New comments and new unblock requests go at the bottom. You have them scattered all over. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

V.L.TDAE. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am deeply sorry if "Yamla" was an admin and thank you for your quick reply for my doubt. As I already said I would want to develop articles on esoteric subject like quantum physics and pure mathematics, please consider my request for unblock.

Accept reason:

Unblocking on the condition that you strictly avoid any edits concerning Russia or Ukraine, broadly construed, and that you strictly follow all other Wikipedia policie and guidelines, especially those concerning sourcing and avoidance of original research. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what you'll work on and how you'll do it? Additionally, do you pledge to avoid anything and everything to do with Ukraine and Russia? Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To admin Acroterion;

Yes,

Thank you for your consideration. Pages like 'Quantum Circuit' needs more expansion. When I surf through these topics, I will add more simpler explanation in areas which are too abstract to grasp theoretically. I pledge I will abstain from editing any article 'political'.

{{unblock|1= Replied;V.L.TDAE. (talk)}

Ok got it...You probably didn't complete Reading that article... Ok ====Reply to Admin 'Yamla'; Sorry if I am not replying in the appropriate section, I am not aware how to. Thank you for your information. I had been editing the topic "Numbers" also, I elaborated something that is not of a new fact but of an further explanation to the given brief fact in the article but 'Favonian' had reverted it twice. First I reverted his revert after complying to his complaint but it was reverted again when I went to the talk page to review edit it was rejected. I didn't understand it then... Thank you for your service of making Wikipedia a better place. V.L.TDAE. (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding commentary characterizing criminal violence as a "plot hole", then removing everything is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are bot. V.L.TDAE. (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator and will block you if you keep this up. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2022 (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).

V.L.TDAE. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here V.L.TDAE. (talk) 11:37 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

duplicate. see below -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2022 (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.

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).

V.L.TDAE. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here V.L.TDAE. (talk) 11:37 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

The totality of your edits screams "Not Here" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2022 (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.

I just reverted a content removal done by another user. I didn't offend any wikipedia policy after your warning. Thus I request you to unblock me.

The gestalt of your edits scrams "not here to build the encyclopedia."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|1=: I didn't do any deletions after or disruptions after the warning from admin "Acroterion". I assure that I won't edit anything to a major extent again. Since I followed the rules advised after the warning, please unblock me.V.L.TDAE. (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2022 (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).

V.L.TDAE. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I meant in the previous edits were that after the warning issued by active admin "Acroterion" I didn't cause any disruptions, I reverted a content removal by another casual user which resulted in a sudden block with notice : "Not here to build a Encyclopedia" by Acroterion. It happened after the warnings issued by the latter; thus I request to review the decision of indefinitely blocking me.

Decline reason:

I agree with the below, you clearly aren't here to be constructive. Yamla (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2022 (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.

I did review that decision and agreed with it. Please describe what you did to merit a block, what you would do instead, and what constructive edits you would make. Please see my block decline above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were treating accusations of war crimes as some sort of movie plot. Moving to somewhat less disruptive tendentious edits in support of a POV is not an improvement in behavior. You appear to be on Wikipedia solely to promote a pro-Russian POV. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: User has told us what they would edit about. I'm neutral, leaving the matter to Acroterion and future reviewers -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

I am deeply, deeply concerned with your edits. You committed to sourcing all of your edits as a condition of your last unblock. Yet I see edits like this, which are entirely unsourced and also appear to be complete garbage (my understanding is that it is impossible, not just difficult, to exactly determine the position and momentum). It's time for you to stop and think. Are you willing to strongly commit to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? If you aren't, you are likely to be blocked again with very little chance of a future unblock. -- Yamla (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a source was added after I started to write this warning. The source, based on my quick reading, categorically does not support the claim, mind you. --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You claim, "I sourced my edit (Stanford), you can re- check it if you wan't." The source doesn't support your claim as far as I can see. But that's not the key point here. The key point is that you are required to source your edit when you make your edit, not a day later. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced my edit (Stanford), you can re- check it if you wan't, Plus please understand that I am not implying a human in case of an observer, In quantum mechanics any particle that interacts with another can be considered as an observer. Since position and velocity are not subjected to continuous and uniform change It is difficult to for the Observer (Photon) to Provide the exact data as it is which gives an error margin causing impossibility in calculating the speed and position of the e- simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.L.TDAE. (talk • contribs)

You are missing the point. I don't care whether you are correct or not. Indeed, I don't know enough about the subject matter to render an opinion and am happy to leave it to others patrolling the page. What I care about is that you introduced the change and didn't bother citing it until a day later, after you had been challenged. If I see you continue like that, I will block you. You agreed to properly cite all of your changes as a condition of your unblock but have failed to do so. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PLEASE put your responses in the appropriate section. Edits like these make it impossible to tell if you are responding to me or to someone else. --Yamla (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit :

I found the reply section V.L.TDAE. (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

====Reply to Admin 'Yamla'; Sorry if I am not replying in the appropriate section, I am not aware how to. Thank you for your information. I had been editing the topic "Numbers" also, I elaborated something that is not of a new fact but of an further explanation to the given brief fact in the article but 'Favonian' had reverted it twice. First I reverted his revert after complying to his complaint but it was reverted again when I wen't to the talk page to review edit it was rejected. I didn't understand it then... Thank you for your service of making Wikipedia a better place. V.L.TDAE. (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Talk Field :

15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kalki, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is such that there is no really "Reliable Sources" except Oxford. If you know one please recommend me about the latter. V.L.TDAE. (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]