User talk:Noam111g

Introduction

Nice to meet you. I'm Noam111g(can call me Noam), 31 years old from Israel. I read wikipedia in my free time, and might throw in edits I see fit, or add subjects to talk about on talk page of a subject. Noam111g (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm Styx & Stones. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dicycloverine, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Styx (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dicycloverine. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Styx (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Dicycloverine. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Dicycloverine. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 00:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam111g (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Im sorry it wont happen again.[reply]

I was on drugs... Noam111g (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dicycloverine

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dicycloverine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I cant because I'm new to Wikipedia and only recently joined, I ussed to be only a reader and never edited alot. Please manually fix what you can. I have provided reliable references of course. Noam111g (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on MapleStory

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page MapleStory, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I cant. I dont know how. I'm new here and its kinda complicated. Noam111g (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The individual you're replying to is a bot, one of many different types on Wikipedia that's used to automatically to make or revert edits. As such, it unfortunately won't respond to any queries you may have.

Wikipedia:Citing sources This link should help you, normally if you want to add a citation to something you can just whack it into the automatic citation maker and it'll do it for you. Sometimes they won't be made automatically, meaning you'll have to do it manually.

Assuming you're on PC, you can try out creating proper citations manually on your sandbox, which you can access by clicking the little person icon in the top right of your screen, then click Sandbox. This is where you can make test edits. On top of this, I'll be putting in a welcome message on this page with some links that'll hopefully help you. CommissarDoggo (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Noam111g!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, CommissarDoggo (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, Noam111g, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions and participation so far. I've replied to your message on Talk:Asperger syndrome, and also reverted some of your other additions to articles, and I wanted to take a moment and explain why.

Wikipedia is founded on the principle of verifiability, which means that anything we write must be able to be cited to a reliable source. This is especially important for articles related to medicine, where a specific definition of reliable source is used. Even if *we* as editors know something to be true, we cannot add it to an article unless there exists a source somewhere that will support it. This is a critical cornerstone of Wikipedia; since there is no way of knowing who added content to an article or why, checking the cited source is the only way we can have any faith in the content's accuracy.

Several of your additions (or proposed additions) seem to be based more on your personal knowledge than what's written in sources. While I don't doubt your good faith in adding these things, we just can't have them in an encyclopedia article, especially a medical article, unless it's backed by reliable sources.

I'm sorry for the somewhat rough introduction to Wikipedia; these are common mistakes that many people make as they're starting out. Please let me know if you have any questions. And again, welcome! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Deliriant

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Deliriant, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2023 (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. Thank you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell them to unblock me. I had no idea I was using Wikipedia like a forums for discussion... Noam111g (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a platform/forum for the publication of original research and edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2023 (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).

Noam111g (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. Sorry to bother you. I understand I was blocked for using Wikipedia as a forum for discussions, and this was a mistake of course. I promise not to do that again, and I have read the rules and everything. I know what to do next, and how to discuss things on talk pages in a way meant to improve wikipedia. Can you unblock me? Thanks. By the way, I'm new to wikipedia. I'm still reading alot of things. I didnt mean to treat Wikipedia like a forums. Noam111g (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not adequately addressed the concerns about your edits. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2023 (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.

I fixed your request for proper display. Do you understand what specifically was problematic with your edits? 331dot (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. I was having an edit war with other user. Can you tell the admin to unblock? It wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam111g (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.

"… there is a tendency for some astrology signs to develop a type of Autism, for example Capricorn, Virgo and Taurus, all of which are Earth signs with a relatively shy personality …" ([1])
"Im sorry it wont happen again. I was on drugs..." ([2])

Noam111g, I'm afraid there are more issues than edit warring and I personally won't be the person to unblock, but you have already taken the right technical steps to ensure that your unblock request appears at CAT:RFU, which is how administrator 331dot probably found here. You may be able to convince 331dot, and I'd be fine with this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam111g Edit warring is one aspect of the block, but not the only one. What will you do to avoid edit warring in the future?

The other aspect of the block is using original research. This is especially problematic with articles about medical topics, which require a high level of sourcing, see WP:MEDRS. Astrology is not recognized as a science, and so you will not find any sources connecting astrological signs to a medical condition. You also attempted to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to Deliriant. Do you understand what was wrong with your efforts there? 331dot (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WEll yeah, like I stated, I really understand everything and it wont happen again. If it happens again, that would probably be a mistake, and i'll work on fixing what's the problem, but its rare anyways, it wont happen again. So yes, if your question is if you can trust me, the answer is yes. Noam111g (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You telling us we can trust you is not the same as you demonstrating that we can trust you. Let me make it a little more concrete: there were several problems with your contributions to the Deliriant article, of which edit-warring was only one. In this edit, you added some sources to your previously-unsourced additions; the attempt is definitely appreciated, but these sources weren't appropriate. You then continued to edit-war with them, and insisted on them on the talk page. Can you explain, in your own words, why these sources were inappropriate for that space? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Writ Keeper's questions. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes Noam111g (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see... I knew there was a problem with them but Delirium is an experience I have had for many years, as I have been using medications to achieve delirium by overdosing them, because I suffer from a permanent form of Anxiety due to my High functioning Autism. Delirium can have anti anxiety effects, but ultimately, is not worth it. It causes rapid changes in emotions, for example, you can be happy one moment, and sad the next moment. Its a terrible syndrome and not one I recommend anybody to experience in their life. But about Wikipedia, I have plans to turn Wikipedia into the best enceplodeia in the world, something we have already kinda achieved, but I will help it get there even faster and better. So yeah, there are too many reasons why I should be unblocked. Thats for sure. If you can specify what specifically prevents you from unblocking up to now, I"ll talk about it with you, but I think you should press the unblock button now, not later. Noam111g (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have been reading wikipedia for years and only recently decided to participate. I used wikipedia for almost everything I can think of. Its amazing how Wikipedia had changed my life. Noam111g (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can press the unblock button now, please do that, and we can talk more later. I was going to add reliable sources to something very important, man. So lets move forward mate. Noam111g (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. Look, I don't doubt your good faith--I know you want to help the encyclopedia. But you also have to be able to actually help, and that involves understanding policies like verifiability and reliable sourcing; if you can't demonstrate that you understand those policies and can apply them in practice, then unblocking won't help the encyclopedia. Your personal experience is valuable, but it is not useful on Wikipedia, because nobody reading the article has any way to verify your personal experience. So we can't use personal experience as a justification for making edits; we need sources. And I know you want to add reliable sources, but first you need to understand what reliable sources are, and how to identify them. This is why I asked you the question above: why are the sources you included in this edit unreliable or otherwise inappropriate? If you can't answer that question, then you don't understand reliable sourcing, and if you don't understand that, then we can't unblock you, as any edit you make will as likely as not damage the encyclopedia, even though you mean well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically, i understand why the sources were unreliable. They were from an unreliable site, a site related to things which we cant rely on. Like the wiki site. Dont worry, I get it. Like I explained, when I'm unblocked I'm going to add third party reliable sources only to what I add to an article. You can click the Unblock button now, and you wont regret doing so. Noam111g (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about 5 hours or more reading Wikipedia rules. If thats not enough to be unblocked, I'm out of ideas. Noam111g (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, I know what you mean and there's no need to continue this conversation. You can unblock and I promise to add reliable third party sources to what I add to articles. And that has nothing to do with the edit war I did by mistake in the Deliriants article. Hallucinations is a complicated subject, so I can understand why it was so important. Noam111g (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81514 is closed.

Thank you for using the Unblock Ticket Request System. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. This requires greater discussion than is possible via UTRS. Please concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. I don't see where you got the idea that you were to be unblocked earlier. Please don't tell us you know what we mean. Show us. You really need to pull it all together concisely and clearly so that it is comprehensible. As an autistic person, I know how hard that can be, but you must do so to be unblocked. Thanks.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically, I was blocked because I did by accident an edit war and used talk pages of articles as forums by accident. by accident basically means I didnt know it wasnt allowed, but now I know after reading the rules multiple times. Knowing the rules now and how to edit properly, discuss things properly, and so on, I see no reason to not be unblocked. If you are arguing with me about being unblocked out of boredom, then we have an even bigger problem than I thought... I'm asking to be unblocked because I know what was wrong and it wont happen again. Thats all. Noam111g (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated, I know what I did wrong and I know what to avoid and how to avoid it. I was involved in edit wars, using talk pages as forum ,and so on. These are the main reasons for the block, and I wont repeat that after I'm unblocked. If you continue to argue with me about being unblocked despite the fact you were supposed to unblock me by now, that is against the Wikipedia rules. As admins, you are supposed to know when a user is supposed to be unblocked. I already explained and described what I can, but you insist somehow I am not "ready" to be unblocked. I'm 100% ready, even if you find that hard to believe. I dont want to report you or cause any trouble, so please respect my appeal and unblock me now. You're just making me exhausted with all this unnecessary discussion about being unblocked. Noam111g (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only reason you were blocked, and frankly the veiled threats (I dont want to report you or cause any trouble, so please respect my appeal and unblock me now) are not at all helping your case. You haven't expressed any understanding of the reliable sourcing policy that has been a persistent and blatant problem with your editing. Your response to my very specific question in the section above was completely insufficient; just saying "the site was unreliable" means nothing unless you can tell us *why* it was unreliable, and it doesn't even address the issues with the second source you used. You are saying a lot of things, but you are not demonstrating any actual understanding at all, and you need to do so to be unblocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you argue with me about pointless things which aren't important or worth a discussion, then yes, this "threat" is real, I can report if you are using your powers to unfairly block users and refuse to unblock just because I didnt come with a good enough explanation for you. This just proves how the Admins on Wikipedia tend to be unfair, rude and abusing their powers. I know the sources I provided werent reliable or good enough, I know everything. Not every little thing I have done which was wrong, requires a full discussion. I dont see any valid reason for that. Of course if I add something new to Wikipedia I must provide reliable sources and I'm aware of that. If you are bored, why do I need to be a victim of that? I was supposed to be unblocked a long time ago. You're just enjoying my last moments of being blocked because you're bored and have nothing better to do. If thats how things are and being treated unfairly, I have honestly lost my motivation to help improve Wikipedia and have no interest in editing it even if I would be unblocked. Noam111g (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]