User talk:Oxavier3377

This is Oxavier3377'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: Polarity in U.S. Politics: Exploring the Divine Feminine and Masculine in Democratic and Republican Ideologies (September 3)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. 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 DoubleGrazing was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I’m learning how to use Wikipedia to write not articles, but to provide non-biased, neutral information. So please, can you reconsider unblocking my account? I was in the process of learning how to use it correctly. Thank you very much for taking the time to reconsider. Oxavier3377 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seem much in that process at all. Rather, you were posting a lot of long, nearly-incoherent personal essays. That is not what Wikipedia is for, so if you want to just brain-dump your personal reflections on things, you will need to do that elsewhere, such as on a blog or the like. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, composed of facts verified by reliable and independent sources, without any editor's own thoughts inserted into them whatsoever. Is that something you are even interested in doing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I absolutely want to improve, and that’s why I’m having this conversation with you—to learn how to use Wikipedia effectively, whether it’s for writing essays or understanding the correct format for neutral, well-sourced content. This was my first time, and I realize I still have much to learn. I’m not entitled to your grace, but I humbly ask for your compassion. If you could please consider unblocking my account or allowing me some more time to do proper research and refine my approach, I would be very grateful. I’m committed to following the guidelines, sourcing my information accurately, and contributing meaningfully to the Encyclopedia.

If you have any tools or articles that could help me better understand the process, I’m more than willing to learn. I also know I can refer to the help tab, and I’ll definitely make use of that resource. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you have a great day. Oxavier3377 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by not using a chatbot. By the way, I went and looked, and it looks like much, if not all, of the article content you wrote was generated by chatbots, too. If I was going to talk to you, I'd want to talk to you, not a bot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking to me, and English is my second language, so I use tools to ensure I am coherent and that you can understand what I’m saying; otherwise, if I write something without assistance, it may not be punctuated or grammatically correct, and I want to come across as coherent, because then you might say, “Well, this is incorrect grammar." Oxavier3377 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then you would say, "Well, I’m not accepting this work because it’s not grammatically correct and punctuated properly." But on the contrary, you might also say, "Well, this wasn’t written by you; it was written by a chat box." English is my second language, so we’re having this conversation to understand each other, right? I’m trying to ensure my work is coherent and meets the standards, and that’s why I’m using tools to help. Thank you for your consideration. Oxavier3377 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking to me, and English is my second language, so I use tools to ensure I am coherent and that you can understand what I’m saying; otherwise, if I write something without assistance, it may not be punctuated or grammatically correct, and I want to come across as coherent, because then you might say, “Well, this is incorrect grammar." Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then you would say, "Well, I’m not accepting this work because it’s not grammatically correct and punctuated properly." But on the contrary, you might also say, "Well, this wasn’t written by you; it was written by a chat box." English is my second language, so we’re having this conversation to understand each other, right? I’m trying to ensure my work is coherent and meets the standards, and that’s why I’m using tools to help. Thank you for your consideration. Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then you would say, "Well, I’m not accepting this work because it’s not grammatically correct and punctuated properly." But on the contrary, you might also say, "Well, this wasn’t written by you; it was written by a chat box." English is my second language, so we’re having this conversation to understand each other, right? I’m trying to ensure my work is coherent and meets the standards, and that’s why I’m using tools to help. Thank you for your consideration. Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: much like when people write books, they often work with editors, but that doesn’t discredit their work. Someone has to proofread and refine it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not their original creation. I could argue that if a proofreader rephrases or edits the content, it’s still the author’s work, not just someone else’s reinterpretation. I believe we’re having a conversation because we’re entering a new phase of technology. It’s like saying, “Well, you didn’t really write that; the machine did,” or “You didn’t really cook that chicken because the oven did it.” Should we go back to cooking over an open fire? We’re adapting to new tools, and it’s important to discuss and understand how they fit into our creative processes. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essays might seem incoherent because they contain paradoxes, which can create a sense of contradiction or confusion. If it would help, I could write an article specifically on paradoxes to clarify the reasons behind the seeming incoherence. Please let me know if that makes sense. Much love. Oxavier3377 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a webhost on which to post essays. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, but I just want to clear the air here. These aren’t essays—I’m fully aware Wikipedia isn’t the place for that. Maybe how I pitched it came off a bit like an essay, but at the core, it’s meant to be an article. I’m here to learn how to write these articles the right way, with a broader, neutral perspective. So, let’s not rush to conclusions about my intentions. Thanks for your patience, and I hope you have an awesome day.

Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: much like when people write books, they often work with editors, but that doesn’t discredit their work. Someone has to proofread and refine it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not their original creation. I could argue that if a proofreader rephrases or edits the content, it’s still the author’s work, not just someone else’s reinterpretation. I believe we’re having a conversation because we’re entering a new phase of technology. It’s like saying, “Well, you didn’t really write that; the machine did,” or “You didn’t really cook that chicken because the oven did it.” Should we go back to cooking over an open fire? We’re adapting to new tools, and it’s important to discuss and understand how they fit into our creative processes. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking to me, and English is my second language, so I use tools to ensure I am coherent and that you can understand what I’m saying; otherwise, if I write something without assistance, it may not be punctuated or grammatically correct, and I want to come across as coherent, because then you might say, “Well, this is incorrect grammar." Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgive me—I'm learning how to use the reply feature, and I mistakenly replied to myself rather than to you. I'm not trying to spam, and I hope this makes sense. I sincerely hope we can find a resolution, or I may need to go public with this conversation because it's something that warrants discussion. Thank you very much, and have a good day. Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think telling me you'll "go public" with something is going to somehow intimidate me, I'm already fully aware that every word I write on Wikipedia is already visible to the general public. So far as bots, when a bot writes something for you, I do not know if you understood what I said, because it's not you doing the writing. I will have every bit of patience for an English learner making grammar and syntax mistakes; I don't get after anyone for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going public with this, my friend, because you’re not the gatekeeper here, and this is all up for conversation and debate. I’m going to take your screen name and your photo, and I’m putting this out there. I might even write an article and send it to news networks because we need to have a serious conversation. You might have to answer to the media because it’s time to expose this issue—not to tear you down, but because this is a recurring problem. People like you are too proud to ask for help, and I’m sorry, but this needs to be addressed.

I’ll be discussing this on my blog and platform, and while I might not use your name publicly there, I’ll consider it for news outlets and newspapers. I’m going to write something because, yes, English is my second language, and when you dismiss my work by saying, “We don’t talk to a chat box,” you’re missing the point. I’m using tools to ensure my work is coherent, but because of pride, you refuse to meet me halfway. Well, sir, I suggest we find common ground. Have a great day! Oxavier3377 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oxavier3377! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Polarity in U.S. Politics: Exploring the Divine Feminine and Masculine in Democratic and Republican Ideologies

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Polarity in U.S. Politics: Exploring the Divine Feminine and Masculine in Democratic and Republican Ideologies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction (September 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://bekindlovingspiritual.com/f/digital-ids-and-the-ingestible-chip-the-wef%E2%80%99s-vision-for-control?blogcategory=Tarot. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wikishovel (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction (September 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GrabUp were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Digital Identification and Ingestible Technologies: The World Economic Forum's Vision and Its Implications Introduction 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.

GrabUp - Talk 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Mother Mary: The Migration to France (September 3)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. 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 DoubleGrazing was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Mother Mary: The Migration to France

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Mother Mary: The Migration to France, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free web hosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]