User talk:NeuroZachary

Welcome!

Hi NeuroZachary! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jubilee Media (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jubilee Media and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeuroZachary! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gays Against Groomers seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gays Against Groomers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please take a look at Talk:Gays Against Groomers, where numerous edits similar to yours have been repeatedly discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article consists of biased points of views. It is in violation of the policy you just listed. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gays Against Groomers 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is NeuroZachary. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Gays Against Groomers

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gays Against Groomers, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NeuroZachary (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did this appeal go through? NeuroZachary (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal was declined. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but I sent another one. NeuroZachary (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this talk page. I never saw you sending a second appeal, and a second appeal should stipulate if you agree to be topic banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NeuroZachary (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked after engaging in a dispute regarding the Gays Against Groomers article. Whilst I do believe that the article is heavily biased, I understand that instead of making edits, I should speak with others on the talk page to reach a consensus before making edits to such contentious topics. I do apologize for my actions, and I will be sure to bring any disagreements with controversial articles onto the talk page instead of editing it right away. I am here to help add more sources and information to articles across Wikipedia, and hopefully contribute to learning -- and I understand how my prior actions weren't representative of that. I will be sure to avoid such edit wars or conflicts in the future by consulting with people on talk pages and being sure to avoid any bias or non-neutrality.

Decline reason:

I would not be comfortable unblocking you without a WP:TOPICBAN on post-1992 politics of the United States and on gender-related disputes and controversies. Your next unblock request should indicate whether that would be acceptable to you or not. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! I was going to ask if the topic ban could be temporary, like 1 month or something, so then in 1 month, if I have contributed in positive ways to Wikipedia, I could get unblocked completely? I will make sure to go through all of the policies of Wikipedia again, and I apologize for the previous incidents. I am quite new to editing, and I'm still getting used to everything. I do really know a lot and have a lot of interest about the topics you mentioned though, which is why I was going to ask if it could be temporary and be re-evaluated in the future. Thank you for your consideration! NeuroZachary (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Topic bans are not normally that short, if ever. Most that I am aware of are not less than 6 months or 500 edits to mainspace(whichever is longer) before they can be appealed. The purpose of the ban is for you to show that you can edit constructively in other areas. One month is insufficient time to show that. You don't need to read every single policy; I'm an admin and I haven't, there are more than you probably think. You just need to be aware of relevant policies. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, I agree to the topic ban and understand. NeuroZachary (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry (User:HurricaneOcean), and not only that but you promised to accept a topic ban here while also continuing to disrupt with your other account (see WP:GHBH). Your request is declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 28 April 2023 (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 want to make sure you understand what you are agreeing to. Topic bans are broadly construed- this means that if an edit has anything at all to do with the areas you are topic banned from, no matter how small, you can't make the edit. Do you understand this? 331dot (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under assumption that the only way I would be getting unblocked is if I accept a topic ban. So, if that is my only way to be unblocked, then yes, I understand and agree to the terms. NeuroZachary (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Would I be able to be unblocked yet? NeuroZachary (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles What do you think about unblocking with a topic ban as described? 331dot (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wonder what sort of topics they do want to edit, because I'm not seeing much that wasn't problematic. ALso, abortion is likely another contentious topic this editor needs to stay away from. Courcelles (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I cannot have another chance. This is my first time being blocked, and I am assuring you I won't violate any rules going forward. I will bring any disputes or disagreements I have to the talk pages of articles instead. You can block me if I violate any rules going forward. NeuroZachary (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, @331dot, HurricaneOcean (talk · contribs) is

Confirmed to NeuroZachary. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? NeuroZachary (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: possible sockpuppetry has been pointed out, please be sure this is investigated before making a ruling. --Pokelova (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you explain what sockpuppetry is NeuroZachary (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jubilee Media

Hello, NeuroZachary. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jubilee Media, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jubilee Media

Hello, NeuroZachary. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jubilee Media".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]