User talk:Materie34

Problematic editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Materie34 has made numerous edits over the past 2 months (Feb/Mar 2023) on pages about antipsychotic medications. These edits are filled with erroneous information along with serious grammatical errors, spelling errors, and word usage errors.

I have corrected the entries on haloperidol with simple "undo" commands, but there are many others. Verytas (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materie34: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic editing on numerous pages about antipsychotic drugs where you are mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing in article on Risperidone

Materie34: I just looked at the article on risperidone because I received an alert that you recently edited the section on serotonin receptors. Once again, however, the words do not make any pharmacological sense - you cannot possibly mean what the words actually say, the references are very old, and there are too many errors for me to correct them. At one point, it states that mice administered risperidone! I will not insult you by deleting your edits, but I strongly suggest that you delete them.

Verytas (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First: jo, easy, I deleted all my editings at risperdal page and I also deleted my perphenazine Edit, No problem, please note that through deleting all my risperdal editings, I had to write at least 1 new sentence because the Serotoninsection would be complitely empty otherwise and this section is somehow a crucial aspect of the whole articel. Second: hey its all good you dont have to explain yourself, I have to thank you and all the other professionals for not blocking me, see, I really have Just good intentions, I Love Wikipedia and sometimes it makes so much fun to me to Edit something, but sure, no problem, you ask I delete😊♥️

But though I want to say some little things: most of the article was created by me a half year ago, so even I knew there are many errors so sure no problem. But I edited a new sentence yesterday and at least regarding this I want to ask a few things. I mean I just said that effects on serotoninreceptors compensate the lack of dopaminereceptors needed for a functioning motoric system, and I mean its basic Knowledge that serotonin effects relief dopamine side effects and second, antagonists inativate receptors thats more than a fact and I think its not that wrong to say that this inactive receptors are missing regarding the motoric system.

What I did was just combine this thinks. I really don't want to say thats some crazy Einstein Shit but I honestly ask my myself whats so terribly wrong with this sentence and why it makes absolutly no sense.

Anyway have a great day Materie34 (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Axiom, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Aside from adding a large block of claims with no sources at all, which is contrary to WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies, you also used very non-encyclopedic wording. Please see MOS:YOU and the rest of our style guide (perhaps start with WP:Simplified Manual of Style). If you are certain that the gist of what you were trying to add is actually correct, you need to cite some WP:Reliable sources that back up these claims. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Axiom for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.

In particular, Wikipedia is neither a place for rambling philosophical discussions nor advancement of your own novel ideas about a topic. The "sources" you are trying to rely on are also nowhere near reliable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric medication

Hello, I'm Kimen8. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I also want to note that the added text had numerous spelling and other grammatical mistakes and was not written from a WP:NPOV. Kimen8 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 02:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Sydpresscott (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on administrator noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Materie34 disruptive edits on psychiatric medications Sydpresscott (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 11:22, 22 January 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).

Materie34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a professional but being blocked for 2 edits in 2 months? Is kinda hard? Reverting 2 edits is work for 10 seconds. And even concerns about unseen problematic editing go to my page and detecting these two in seconds? Beside the fact that my editings are far away from vandalism? Well if not unblocked thank you for the great time I had with wikipediaMaterie34 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should probably contribute to the version of Wikipedia in your native language. It's difficult to understand what you're even saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 23 January 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.

Looks like more than two edits in two months. Looks like the culmination of ongoing concerns. Please review your talk page, your block log, and the ANI discussion and address these concerns. What we need to unblock you is for you to concisely and clearly describe what you did and what you would do instead. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in case of my psychiatric medication edit till my first one week ban there were 3 - 4 edits regarding two blocks of edits. Since, I've created two edits in two months once renewed after revertion so 3 actions since then. Please note that these two edits based on my experience with the motoric system on these drugs. I also kept advice not writing anecdotal experience though. So whatever, have a nice day. Materie34 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes mentioned above that was the chronic(maybe + 2 - 3 actions correcting orthographic errors or problems with sources) Materie34 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 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).

Materie34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My second unblock request. I kept time between trying to demonstrate respect. After my one week block, I made six edits ranging over two blocks of edit. I'm not a native but I asked chatgbt about grammatical/orthographically errors. My haloperidol block contained 0 explicit errors/0 issues and 0 issues. My second edit lock contained 0 explicit errors/7 issues in this regard. Please note that in terms of the number of edits this is the chronic. I just want to say that in the discussion about me it was partially reffered to editings before my first one week block. Sources: I'm far away from competence in this regard but my synthetic cannabinoids block, at least, satisfies the official definition of convulsions (that intoxications disturb the controll ability of the motoric system/the dissociation of such disturbances to a classical convulsion. In terms of my haloperidol block 2 of three sources doesn't work anymore and yes you need to trust me in this regard but these two sources fitted with my claim about the rudimentary purposeless motion generated from brains which will then modified from secondary neurotransmitters into the final motion. My locical connection to the function of an inverse agonist and in terms of the definition that they express a negative effect at the aimed receptor is, in my subjective opinion, not a crazy delirlike autism/savant theory about for example new regards of the relativistic theory of Einstein to make a hyperbel on that. Pls note again that these two sources doesn't work anymore but my claim, explained bevore, fitted these explanations (for sure, yet, only existing in my mind). To come to an end: Have a nice day y'all you are all awesome don't let things change that opinion😂✌️❤️Materie34 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have continued to post text into articles which is so garbled and incoherent that it is extremely difficult to work out what it is intended to mean. Your unblock request, far from indicating that you understand the reasons for the block and will avoid doing the same again, makes it clear that you don't understand the reasons for the block, and will be unable to avoid doing the same again. Much of your unblock request is incomprehensible, which in itself would be sufficient reason for declining the request, but insofar as it is possible to make any sense of it, you appear to be denying that there are problems, which in itself would be sufficient reason for declining the request. JBW (talk) 00:05, 10 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).

Materie34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reasheiojust a quick thank you to verytas spicy ect. beside the other stuff I'm really not in my best times my edits would be legit not goodre Materie34 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request is an incoherent word salad. Your skill with English is insufficient to participate here. Please edit the Wikipedia that is in your primary language. If you make further disruptive requests, you will lose access to this page. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 19 April 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).

Materie34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Boomer mit Einfluss, war noch nie ne gute Idee und wird nie eine sein xD spaßtis

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 21:50, 21 April 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.

. Materie34 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, thank you for access to my well shaped chronik no hate❤️ Materie34 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.