User talk:LotteryGeek

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mikhail Lebedev (neuroscientist) (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Kpgjhpjm were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuroscientist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuroscientist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LotteryGeek! Having an article 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! Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Kpgjhpjm 01:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Article post

Please stop spamming so many editors' talk pages with requests that they work on your draft articles. It's inappropriate. And why is it so urgent that Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist) be nominated for good or featured article within 30 days? Schazjmd (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is a very famous neuroscientist who gets a lot of news coverage. But there are no articles about him on Wikipedia at all.

https://blog.frontiersin.org/2017/06/14/research-on-creating-human-super-intelligence-wins-first-annual-spotlight-award/ https://singularityhub.com/2017/06/27/is-the-brain-augmentation-hype-justified-heres-an-experts-take/ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/hub/hse-university/p/mapping-mind-through-cognitive-neuroscience https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01428-8

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs)

Posting your demand for someone else to work on your article on multiple project and WP talk pages is not appropriate either. Please stop doing that. Schazjmd (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I will stop. Is the article approvable now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs)

Please always sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). I am not an article reviewer, however I doubt that it will be approved in the state that it is in. Your draft is not ready for mainspace yet. Please look at other articles to get an idea of what an article should look like and what information it should contain. Your first article may offer you some useful tips. You might also find User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners to be helpful. Good luck. Schazjmd (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You said you would stop, but then you post comments such as this on Schazjmd's talk page soon after. You seem very adamant about having this article finished by some sort of deadline to the point where you expect others to drop what they are doing and do this for you. Is it because you are being paid to write about this subject? If so, you must disclose that information. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not being paid. I am not skilled enough of a Wikipedia editor for anyone to pay yet. But I do wish to build a portfolio and want to start having a couple of good and featured articles. Otherwise, I will not have any credibility on here. Do you have articles on how to become a credible Wikipedian SOON?

Before I respond to your question, please answer this one: what is your purpose for editing Wikipedia? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to promote articles that I am interested in. For instance, I just started a third article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stop_the_steal

If you can't see why that draft is even more inappropriate than the first two you've created, I see no point in wasting more of my time here. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide me some examples of articles should look like on those topics that become good and featured articles with the help of others? And please remember. IT IS A DRAFT. I spent minutes on it. Once other people help me, it will become at least a good article.

The extreme POV wording of that draft and your user page commentary suggest that you are here to push a particular point of view and not to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. After some investigation, I see the username under which you were previously blocked also. I see no benefit in allowing you to edit here. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

About writing articles

I saw your post on many people's talk pages, and so I'm going to respond here to clear up some misconceptions you may have about how Wikipedia works.

First, please stop going to so many people's talk pages and asking them to work on particular articles. Wikipedia is written by volunteers, who write articles about whatever they find interesting. There's also no deadline; we don't urgently need to write articles. This is, in part, because it takes a long time to write articles. Writing your first good or featured article is going to take quite a bit of time.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't strive to have an article about everything and everyone, but only those things/people that have enough information available about them to make a decent article (for the details, see the general notability guideline).

Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

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 ~~~~}}.  Kinu ^t/_c 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The point of encyclopedia is to include all points of view. I can put in my point of view and others can put in other points of view and I will not delete. It is kind of like caucus. Please unblock. I can change user page.

Decline reason:

Kinu's explanation is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

No, the purpose of an encyclopedia, including this one, is not to include all points of view. Its goal is to include information that is discussed in reliable, third-party sources. Your comments suggest that you would continue to use Wikipedia as a soapbox if you were allowed to edit. I stand by my block. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I am misunderstood. Can the supervisory director review this?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stop the steal (January 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. If this draft is resubmitted, or an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection, a topic-ban or a partial block may be requested against the submitting editor, and the draft may be nominated for deletion.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Neutral point of view is the Second pillar of Wikipedia.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Weirsky (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Weirsky and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michael Weirsky, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

After conferring with the individuals in the IRC chat, I realized I am biased on topics related to United States politics. I do not have the same issue with other topics. For that reason, I am requesting that my block be changed to only apply to editing articles on American politics

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=After conferring with the individuals in the IRC chat, I realized I am biased on topics related to United States politics. I do not have the same issue with other topics. For that reason, I am requesting that my block be changed to only apply to editing articles on American politics |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=After conferring with the individuals in the IRC chat, I realized I am biased on topics related to United States politics. I do not have the same issue with other topics. For that reason, I am requesting that my block be changed to only apply to editing articles on American politics |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=After conferring with the individuals in the IRC chat, I realized I am biased on topics related to United States politics. I do not have the same issue with other topics. For that reason, I am requesting that my block be changed to only apply to editing articles on American politics |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I will consider this unblock request, and I am currently leaning toward granting one with a topic ban on post-1992 United States politics (as mentioned in the discretionary sanctions notice a few sections up). So that there are no misunderstandings later, I would suggest you read precisely what a topic ban covers: not just articles about post-1992 US politics, but articles substantially related to the topic (politicians, laws, etc), discussions related to those articles, and parts of articles where the main article isn't covered by this sanction but the section is relevant (for example, while you could edit California, you would not be permitted to edit California#Government_and_politics, and a few other cases listed in the link I gave. You should also recognize that you will probably be under increased scrutiny from other editors and any violations of your topic ban will result in another block (one which will be much harder to get out of). After having read all of that, are you still willing to be unblocked with a topic ban? GeneralNotability (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I agree to the topic ban as I am easily triggered by and biased on the US politics topics.