User talk:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it uses Unicode characters resembling but not functioning as ordinary letters. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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) 22:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Creationism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For the (insert number above 3)th time, what unconstructive edits? You're not an admin. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor is Remsense. Remsense gave you a warning you should take heed of. If only admins could issue warnings, very few editors would get blocked. It's just not practical. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You literally said that what the admins think is more important than what I think. You didn't specify anything else. Remsense actually gave a valid point and I am waiting for my username change request to be processed. You on the other hand...aren't listening to me. I can reread the rules all you want, and I have read and concluded that my edit wasn't disruptive. If someone came up and said that a scientific study was pseudoscience, then that would be disruptive to science overall. Stop breaking the rules already. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a rule you should look at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Have a look at the very first bullet point in the opening section. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait I didn't edit ANYWHERE when I was logged out. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for removing the word "pseudoscience" from an article, then arguing about it with someone who reverted the edit. I wasn't socking. As in, I share a computer. I may have argued too much, but I was still contributing to the encyclopedia, a simple check at my edit history should fix that. Wasn't trolling. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed and blatant WP:LOUTSOCK, no comment as to the specific IP address involved. This was clearly not done in good faith. It's also very clear you don't understand how Wikipedia works and what our policies say. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

• Sorry that I'm jumping into this, but the amount of edit filter tripping by your usernames have already caught my attention. You're saying that, an IP that comes out of nowhere to support you as their first edit is not a WP:LOUTSOCK? Please don't attempt to deceive users, it will just kill your chances of being unblocked. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at rules

Um how do I personally talk to an admin about this? If I don't tell my entire story no one will believe me, but if I put my entire story in an unblock request then it's against the rules. Now what? (why would anyone answer this? I'm not trusted anymore) 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You can leave your entire story in a comment here on this page. Specifically, this is the appropriate place to do so. I'll warn you, though, WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply. It's hard to see how your "entire story" could possibly address your inappropriate edits and your violation of WP:LOUTSOCK, along with your attempt to mislead us about WP:LOUTSOCK. --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You are also going to have to pick a new username in order to be unblocked. See WP:USERNAME. --Yamla (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait wait wait when I try to send a username request it says I can't because I'm blocked. And then I can't become unblocked unless I convince an admin that I'm telling the truth and I change my username...and I can't do that unless I become unblocked. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You can include your planned new username in your unblock request. Your username is a much smaller issue than the other concerns that lead to your block. --Yamla (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

A story

I wanted to tell my story, so here it is: "oh look wikipedia, i want to make an account...oh no it capitalizes my username...maybe i can put a character that's always lowercase d...oh look unicode symbols!""oh no look my username is bad"*send usename request* *edit edit edit* "hmm...looks like this article could use some improving. But i should talk about it first.""hey look this is controversial may i delete it?"someone else:"no because..." *arguing**arguing* "ok then i will do something smaller so that it still says the same thing but doesn't break the rules." "Hey that's not allowed!" *more arguing* *my little sister comes over irl and causes some trouble* *admin comes over and blocks me indefinitely* *i finally get a response to my username change and it's declined* *i scold my sister irl* *get a block appeal declined because it looks like socking* *i rethink my life* *hoping this story doesn't count as a wall of text* 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't loutsocking, first of all. Look above. Second, I was trying to build the encyclopedia. I was blocked indefinitely for making a sentence sound less wordy and more neutral. Third, may I have a username of "I am dsJjj"?

Sorry for arguing too much. Maybe I should be blocked for more like 8 years instead of indefinitely, because I just argue too much everywhere.

𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I wasn't loutsocking, first of all. Look above. Second, I was trying to build the encyclopedia. I was blocked indefinitely for making a sentence sound less ''wordy'' and more ''neutral''. Third, may I have a username of "I am dsJjj"? :Sorry for arguing too much. Maybe I should be blocked for more like 8 years instead of indefinitely, because I just argue too much everywhere. :[[User:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣|𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣]] ([[User talk:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣#top|talk]]) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't loutsocking, first of all. Look above. Second, I was trying to build the encyclopedia. I was blocked indefinitely for making a sentence sound less ''wordy'' and more ''neutral''. Third, may I have a username of "I am dsJjj"? :Sorry for arguing too much. Maybe I should be blocked for more like 8 years instead of indefinitely, because I just argue too much everywhere. :[[User:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣|𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣]] ([[User talk:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣#top|talk]]) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't loutsocking, first of all. Look above. Second, I was trying to build the encyclopedia. I was blocked indefinitely for making a sentence sound less ''wordy'' and more ''neutral''. Third, may I have a username of "I am dsJjj"? :Sorry for arguing too much. Maybe I should be blocked for more like 8 years instead of indefinitely, because I just argue too much everywhere. :[[User:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣|𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣]] ([[User talk:𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣#top|talk]]) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I was blocked indefinitely for making a sentence sound less wordy and more neutral—that's your POV. My reading of your edits is that you were violating WP:PSCI and WP:ARBPS, and several admins seem to agree that my reading is right. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahem. Same ideas. It has the same ideas. When I edited that I made sure it had the same ideas. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

When editing Wikipedia one has to think how WP:RULES get applied intersubjectively. So, your own interpretation of your own edits is a very small piece of the big picture. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I already know that.

I don't want to get blocked for arguing...oh wait, I'm already blocked. I think I already know that as well, so I don't think you need to elaborate. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)