User talk:XiounuX

Speedy deletion of Paul Laviolette[edit]

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Paul Laviolette has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dennis Brown 2¢ 02:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Dennis Brown 2¢ 02:42, 1 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Are you out of your mind? What the hell is "Serpentdove"?? XiounuX (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to calm down. A simple denial is not sufficient for an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 04:30, 1 February 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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Oh I'm perfectly calm. You need to get off your high horse and prove your filthy allegations. XiounuX (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked by blocking admin (log) following discussion. Procedural accept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Serpentdove, and it looks like the last sock there was in 2009. Are you willing to provide a bit more information regarding why you suspect these two accounts are so behaviorally related as to necessarily be the same person? If you don't feel comfortable posting on-wiki, email is fine, but I'm having a hard time coming to the affirmative conclusion that these are the same person—particularly with the 14ish-year gap in time between the last known sock and creation of this account. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: According to his own words, you do not need his permission "to revert or modify any admin action that I have taken if it is to better the encyclopedia and not likely to be controversial" - and here approving a well-sourced bio article on a notable scholar always benefits Wikipedia and cannot be considered controversial by definition of an encyclopedia. XiounuX (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk has convinced me (privately) the block was a bit hasty. I still feel there is something going on, but the evidence isn't strong enough to maintain the block. This shouldn't prejudice any other admin from taking any actions in the situation. Dennis Brown 2¢ 00:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello XiounuX! Your additions to Draft:Paul LaViolette have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun[edit]

Stop edit warring. You are right on the edge of being blocked again. Three people have reverted your additions and you should now stop and discuss about the content at the talk page. Do remember that Wikipedia is built from editor consensus, so your insults will certainly not help your case at the administrator noticeboard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add a peer-reviewed scientific reference without discussing it (with undergrad kids as in this case). You do not get to discuss peer reviewed literature, but you are welcome to counter it with another peer-reviewed reference.XiounuX (talk) XiounuX (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is literally in here... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, as the reference is not about magnetic activity but what you can learn from it about the sun's global dynamics (says so in the paper abstract, even you can understand it).XiounuX (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true as there's no discussion at that link pertaining to the Sun article. Stop lying.XiounuX (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's one now (at a different link and later than your above hasty notice), and I replied there.XiounuX (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 15:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk:

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).

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

Request reason:

Oh I am here to build an encyclopedia, but you keep me down by these immediate permanent bans for no reason like the last time, or for minor violations like here the 3R rule. XiounuX (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing here convinces me your behaviour would be substantially different if unblocked. Nor have you addressed your violation of WP:NLT. Yamla (talk) 15:22, 2 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I was not threatening anyone, I pointed out that apparently Dr. Omerbashich is. So what is my actual violation here to ban me permanently without ever been justifiably blocked even for a day? Your hatred for this guy must be of gigantic proportions so you immediately ban anyone who even tries to include his obviously excellent science in Wikipedia. XiounuX (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Removing talk page access. This is a waste of time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 2 February 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.

@Red-tailed hawk:TBTP are at it again. Care to look into it a little deeper? They banned me permanently - again for no reason. XiounuX (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made legal threats in violation of WP:NLT, and doubled down on personal attacks against other editors after being warned about them. This block happened after you were reported to WP:ANI; a notification of the report was given to you before this block was made. You have more broadly been belligerent on article talk pages, and you engaged in edit warring at Sun. All of this was in the span of three days.

In light of the above, I wholeheartedly endorse SFR’s indefinite block of you. If you would like to appeal, please file a ticket with WP:UTRS, since your talk page access has been revoked. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is some skepticism (understandably so), but I still say this reminds me of User:Serpentdove, which was the original block. Dennis Brown 2¢ 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]