User talk:TheNeutron

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Your submission at Articles for creation: Andy Vidan (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Spinster300 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Added additional references per your recommendations. Apologies for the delay - been offline quite a bit recently. TheNeutron (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TheNeutron! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Spinster300 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheNeutron and Andy Vidan unblock condition. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the conditions of your unblock, as you did at Draft:Andy Vidan.
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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an active editor on Wikipedia. I primarily edit pages on people within the IEEE community.
While there was a block that was previously lifted, I did not mean to make the same error.
Many months (years) after the initial error, I found that the page on Andy Vidan was still not created. This irked me as I did not want this page not to exist because of my error as a new contributer. Forgeting the unblock, I reached out to one of the editors and asked for advice. They suggested that the best approach would be a neutral AfC submission, which I did.
Months later, I again saw the edits. So I simply provided new references.
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).

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

Request reason:

new contributer, just trying to add value TheNeutron (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"new"? You've been here for five years. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:23, 24 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.

TheNeutron (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously granted a conditional unblock in which you were prohibited from editing any content related to Andy Vidan or Composable. You were still under that restriction at the time that you created the now-deleted Draft:Andy Vidan in August, and when you submitted it in January. These edits were in violation of your unblock condition (see: WP:CONDUNBLOCK), and you were thusly blocked. If you are going to have a chance at appealing this, you need to explain why you continued to edit about Andy Vidan even after you were unblocked, and also what you plan to edit going forward if you are unblocked. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think this is a big misunderstanding, and it would be great if you could please re-consider from my point of view. I had no idea this was such a contentious topic. These are the actual facts:
- I'm just a neutral guy here (unpaid, not-frequent contributor).
- I started by filling out biographies of people associated in IEEE, etc.
- I actually believe that Wikipedia is more useful when there is *more* information about a topic then there being *less* information
- Having lists and lists of people, for example, who have won significant awards or make a significant contribution is not useful, in and of itself. If a person is listed, wouldn't it be nice if there was more information about them? In academia, it's useful to see who the people actually are, what their technical backgrounds are, what else did they or are they working on.
Now, the timeline of events here:
1. Created/edited some pages
2. One page was deleted (which was weird); block/unblock/etc.
3. I was discouraged/forgot about it all
4. Several years later, found myself editing again because I was again looking at useless lists of names of people with no background
5. Realized that the page was still deleted. Felt bad that it was deleted because of me!
6. Honestly forgot about the block/unblock conditions. It was ~3 years ago!
7. Reached out to @Missvain to ask her for guidance. She suggested the AfC.
8. I went through AfC, and here we are.
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).

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

Request reason:

Just trying to follow the process. See above. Really not trying to do anything contentious. In terms of what I would edit in the future: likely topics in STEM, biographies, technology. TheNeutron (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. I do not buy this at all. I believe that there is a COI at play here, and the fact you went right back to the exact topic that led to a block in the past tells me we will be here again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 24 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.

Unblock discussion

Missvain probably was not aware of your unblock condition. Are you associated with the IEEE? 331dot (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty bad memory lapse. What would prevent a recurrence? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few years. In the grand scheme of things (including a covid pandemic), that was not top of mind. I apologize.
What likely happened is that the same line of thinking that had me looking at those pages a few years back, brought me back to those pages.
And then I realized that the person whose page was deleted and banned, was done so because of me! So I thought I would try to rectify the situation and reached out for guidance and did the AfC. TheNeutron (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not deleted because of you, so you can rest easy on that score. The article was deleted because an AFD discussion was held and the consensus reached was to delete. There is no situation to rectify, the AFD reached the correct conclusion. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Now I'm remembering the details. Talk about a "mistrial" and leading the witness. You say that the AFD "reached the correct conclusion" - hardly seems like a neutral statement. Why are you, and were you, so adamant to remove a page about a scientist who won a notable award and already listed on Wikipedia? Why do you want dead links on Wikipedia, of lists upon lists of people with no background? How is that a useful encyclopedia. A person comes across reading about individual X, but other than their name, no other info is available?
So, again - why were you on such a mission to remove this?Can you reveal your associations? Are you a paid editor?
The AfD had another suggesting a week keep, etc. And perhaps without your misleading the others, it would have been kept. I feel that you intentionally removed an article I spent some time putting together. How strange. TheNeutron (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was a community discussion and was implemented by an admin. No one was misled. All AFDs are intentional removals. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so the community has decided that a 'useful encyclopedia' is one that has some minimum thresholds for inclusion that simply were not met in this case. But I'm not here to be drawn into an argument - this will be my last comment on this. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no association with IEEE. TheNeutron (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I can't parse this but feel like a WP:TBAN is needed as an unblock condition-- just can't articulate it. Suggestions? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a tban in place that they immediately violated after returning to editing. I'm not really convinced we wouldn't be dealing with the same issue again in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a strict ban in place. I thought there was an agreement that I wouldn't just re-create a specific article. 3 years later, I didnt just re-create it but went through an AfC. Didnt realize the gravity of the situation
Happy to confirm that I will not re-create that article. TheNeutron (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gist I get is that you have a conflict of interest related to IEEE. What else might you edit about. I think a TBAN broader than that one article might be in order. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, so. I see the Composable TBAN as well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I solemnly pledge conformity, avoiding the forbidden topics. TheNeutron (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie @ScottishFinnishRadish@Deepfriedokra Anyone? TheNeutron (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered the question from above, What else might you edit about? What are some examples of contributions you plan on making? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what else I would contribute to. I don't have a specific agenda. I just don't like the idea of my id being blocked.
But, in general, I gravitate towards editing articles, or adding details to articles, on STEM topics. TheNeutron (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: ??? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm not asking to be unblocked because of a specific agenda to update a specific article.
I'm asking to be unblocked because I want to contribute to Wikipedia as a) time allows b) I read an article about a topic I know about and see areas to improve it. Generally, these are science related articles, but not exclusive. TheNeutron (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any edits they'd like to make currently and cannot provide any examples of edits they'd make in the future. Maybe I'm a bit of a hardass, but I'm not convinced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have it -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why you changed your answer to one that would be rejected, I cannot fathom. Please feel free to request unblocking with a new ticket acknowledging your WP:TOPICBANs on IEEE, or Composable, or anything connected therewith, broadly construed, and describing any constructive edits you might make. If you don't have any constructive edits to make, then there is no need to unblock you. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 5 February 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).

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

Request reason:

There is no COI. I was adding content to IEEE pages extremely infrequently over a 3+ year peridod. If I was paid to do this, I would be starving by now. If I was trying to do something insane, I would not have reached out for guidance to use AfC

Decline reason:

I'm afraid you won't be unblocked to edit about IEEE, or Composable, or anything connected therewith, broadly construed. "What else might you edit about? What are some examples of contributions you plan on making?" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:27, 5 February 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.

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

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge the specific topic bans that are in place. I am requesting to be unblocked so I can contribute to various topics, specifically: biographies of US Physicists, topics in physics and math.

Accept reason:

per discussion and hoping for the best. tban IEEE and Composable . Welcome back -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Is this sufficient for unblocking?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, there's still no actual example provided, and I feel that we'll end up in this same situation again, or dealing with another non-notable biography with the same problems. Though reblocks are cheap, we have to weigh that versus the time spent by editors checking their edits and reporting if necessary. If you're comfortable with an unblock here, I'm fine with your judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will stick to notable articles. I won't create new articles for fun. TheNeutron (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I share your concerns. @TheNeutron: If we do unblock you any new article creation must go through WP:AFC and be vetted by AFC reviewers. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra@ScottishFinnishRadish Agreed. TheNeutron (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:TheNeutron"