User talk:AlexNet22

This is AlexNet22's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Decision stream (June 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This idea will have to be picked up by other authors before it qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

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:Decision stream and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! AlexNet22, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision streams[edit]

Dear Alexnet22,

A large number of IP addresses have been adding references to the concept of "decision streams" and the recent arXiv posting 1704.07657 across several articles. I assume that these IP addresses and you are all the same person -- my apologies if this is a mistake. Unfortunately, this behavior is not in accordance with the rules and policies of Wikipedia, and so I have removed your additions. I know that this is frustrating, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to publicize brand-new research. The concept of decision stream might be an excellent one; if so, it will be adopted and studied more widely in the relevant academic community, papers about it will be published by authors other than its inventors, and it will become possible to write a well sourced article on the topic and link it from other Wikipedia pages. But now is too early. You can see some related comments from another user here; you are also welcome to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, a centralized discussion page for articles in Wikipedia related to mathematics, where other users can give you their opinions.

All the best, JBL (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this addition is to try to ensure visibility by the not-logged-in IP editors. @46.39.231.142: @78.108.46.137: @46.39.231.213: @82.145.53.14: @190.183.61.155: @46.39.231.170: JBL (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see at least one external link, David? AlexNet22 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Please do not spam thirty editors with the same message; it is unnecessary and will not attract support for your way of thinking. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's solved that problem by making the number thirty-one. E Eng 10:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - I came here to say the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not spamming a zillion people with your complaints would be an excellent idea, too William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be noted that I've taken a look at the revision history of the draft you want restored, and it seems your battleground attitude is present there, too. I'll restore it if you guarantee us you'll put your disagreements with certain editors behind you and work to improve the site, instead of making us sink time into fixing up spam. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've be warned against spamming people, and yet you continue. You may be blocked if you continue. Consider this a warning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using an unapproved bot to spam admins with a complaint about another admin when you've barely even discussed the matter with them is not a great idea... Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running unapproved bot scripts.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You appear to be running some kind of code to rapidly mass-distribute your message onto random users' talk pages. Publishing the same message in many places (let's call it forum shopping) is unproductive and disruptive, and using a program to make automated edits without approval is not allowed. I have blocked you to prevent execution of your program. I will gladly unblock you if:

you disable this code permanently, and
you agree not to post messages to many random users again. If you have an issue, read the instructions and ask for help once in the right place (or at the help desk) and kindly wait for a volunteer to reply.

Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:26, 29 July 2018 (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).

AlexNet22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't use any scripts, but asked different administrators for help manually submitting several pages at the same time

Decline reason:

However you did it (and posting to 14 different editors within the same minute looks pretty fast for manual editing to me) you were blocked for spamming a whole bunch of editors with the same message and not stopping when asked. You have not addressed that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2018 (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.

Why did you disregard the four users above asking you to stop? I said I'd undelete the page you wanted if you stopped, and yet you continued. Clarification, along with responses to Ivanvector, may get you unblocked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (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).

AlexNet22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Ivanvector, Of course, I'm not going to use any scripts. AlexNet22 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2018 (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.

August 2018[edit]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Joel B. Lewis. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.
Note: Specific thread is; User talk:Joel B. Lewis#Campaign of [redacted] against "Decision Stream" - ^theWOLFchild 09:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]