User talk:Lovely dolphin

I was trying to edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widest_path_problem article. However, the article has been controlled by User:David Eppstein, so that other people cannot express their opinion. I was trying to introduce a new algorithm to solve the Widest path problem to people. Source code of the algorithm has been provided so that people can test it.

David Eppstein reverted my editing repeatedly, but provided no evidence. He just kept repeating his claims but did not provide any evidence to prove his opinion. I provided source code of Algorithm 4 as evidence to prove my opinion, but the evidence was ignored by David Eppstein.

People like David Eppstein are trying to control Wikipedia so that they can dominate public opinion, and hamper people from gaining new knowledge. They are trying to benefit from the domination (e.g., fame, citation etc.)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that contains opinions of all people, it should not be dominated and controlled by individuals like David Eppstein.

Widest path problem

Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Widest path problem have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.

Hello, Lovely dolphin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2024 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lovely_dolphin reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: ). Thank you. JBL (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Widest path problem, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. रोहित^Talk_with_me 19:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I was trying to edit the Widest path problem article. However, the article has been controlled by User:David Eppstein, so that other people cannot express their opinion. I was trying to introduce a new algorithm to solve the Widest path problem to people. Source code of the algorithm has been provided so that people can test it.

David Eppstein reverted my editing repeatedly, but provided no evidence. He just kept repeating his claims but did not provide any evidence to prove his opinion. I provided source code of Algorithm 4 as evidence to prove my opinion, but the evidence is ignored by David Eppstein.

I have learned the rules for solving disputes. I will follow the rules after being unblocked.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia article content is not for people to express their opinions. Edit summaries aren't really the proper venue for that either. That's for the article talk page. No individual editor is trying to control anything; your edits were reverted by five different editors. Wikipedia artilcles summarize independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not necessarily for distributing "new knowledge"; it's for telling what independent sources say about a topic. In any event, please demonstrate your knowledge of how to resolve disputes by explaining how to do so in a new request. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 July 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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

1. When people edit Wikipedia articles, they indeed are expressing their opinions. 2. You see five different editors, does not mean there indeed are five different editors. Some of the editors (or maybe all of the five) are just alternative accounts of David Eppstein. 3. As you said: "it's for telling what independent sources say about a topic." My editing of the topic is exactly an "independent sources say about a topic."

Decline reason:

Utter nonsense. I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia in basically every regard. Yamla (talk) 10:36, 29 July 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.

You didn't do what I asked, and you made this worse for yourself by lobbing unfounded accusations and clearly misunderstanding what it is that we do here. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 29 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Why are you so sure there are five different editors? you just see five different names. It does not necessarily to be five different people. In addition, truth does not necessarily stand on the majority side, truth only stand on evidence side. Without evidence to support your claim, even though you have 100 different editors, that does not mean you are right.

Decline reason:

You need to carefully read WP:CONSENSUS. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 29 July 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.

Truth is not what's important here. See WP:TRUTH. Note that you are in serious danger of losing talk page access, given that everything you are doing here demonstrates you fundamentally misunderstand everything about Wikipedia. I very, very strongly urge you to remove your most recent open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. for an encyclopedia, if truth is not important, then what is important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovely dolphin (talk • contribs)

This is very clearly answered in the article I linked you to. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My editing of the article does have verifiability. It belongs to this category : "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovely dolphin (talk • contribs)

You have provided no reason to believe Gangli Liu is an established subject-matter expert whose work in that field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This is my last response to you. --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is his orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3921-0446 He has published dozens of papers, including authoritative peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]