User talk:Aristotele1982

Welcome!

Hello, Aristotele1982! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- Irn (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchy

Edits such as this one belong on the article talk page, not in the article proper. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriarchy. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social science

I have started discussion on the talk page for Social science, proposing the removal of the "Neutral Point of View" template you added to it. Please respond there with any reasons you think it should stay, and if so, how you propose to fix what you see as a problem on the page. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On social science

The preface of the page states that social science is a science in the general sense of science, that is a priori, predictable knowledge which social sciences are not. Philology for instance uses qualitative and quantitative data but is not science. Furthermore the discussion over the epistemic status of social sciences is still going on but, despite this, there is not even a word on this in the page. So, no I suggest not to remove the NPOV from it until further revisions are made Aristotele1982 (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synthesis

Regarding this, do not do it, or anything like it, again. You've had enough warnings by now to know how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Many of your edits suggest you are not editing or unable to edit with a neutral point of view: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

Also, since you're editing in these areas, you should be aware of the discretionary sanctions related to them:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Patriarchy

Greetings. You have made essentially the same vague complaints before as you posted today, in July 2017 and December 2017, and were told both times that you needed sources to back up your claims. Repeating the same argument and repeatedly tagging the article is verging on disruptive, if not already over the line. Please use article talk pages for discussion of sources and policy, not for promoting your personal interpretation of the topic. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as talk:Patriarchy are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. If you want to air your prejudices please don't do it here. We're trying to build an encyclopedia. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchy edits

Hi Aristotele1982. When you are reverted by another user, you need to discuss your edits rather than just reverting back, like you did in this edit. You are also dangerously close to running afoul of the three-revert rule—it is standard to block users for 24 hours if they make more than three reverts to one page within a 24 hour period. This is a bright-line rule which applies no matter whether other editors are also breaking the rules or not. Even if you do not surpass the three revert threshold, it is best to not make reversions unless consensus is already clear, otherwise you may be edit warring. Please don't make any further reversions to the article until there is agreement on the talk page. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (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:Aristotele1982 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: ). Thank you. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aristotele1982, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

— Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:11, 30 October 2018 (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).

Aristotele1982 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

editing was not disrupting, all material was referenced and useful, no controversial material used

Decline reason:

A CheckUser investigation brought to daylight that you made inappropriate use of alternative accounts, which is ample reason for a block. If you resume this kind of behavior, your next block will most likely be indefinite! Favonian (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2018 (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 block is for your abuse of multiple accounts, not disruptive editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding your personal commentary to articles

No more WP:OR/Synthesis. Stop it. And when it comes to adding templates like Template:POV, they should actually be justified, not added based on your personal opinion. Read what Template:POV states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - Annual re-alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance

Hi Aristotele1982, and thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest relating to CSMBR. You might like to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for information about the relationship between Wikipedia and editors associated with organisations. I've moved the page you created to draft space, so it can now be found at Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance. I did this because the article does not have many reliable secondary sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. If you can add more sources to the article then you can submit it to Articles for Creation (using instructions at the bottom of the draft page), and this way an uninvolved, experienced editor can neutrally assess whether the topic and article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aristotele1982, You page has been moved to draft page as you have a conflict of interest of the affected page for such the article needs to go through Article for Creation process. Pls click the submit button for review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance (June 16)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aristotele1982! Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:CSMBR - Print.png

Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Print.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:CSMBR - Logo mod.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Logo mod.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:CSMBR - Print.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CSMBR - Print.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CSMBR - Print.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Print.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]