User talk:Sederecarinae

Welcome

Hello, Sederecarinae, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - wolf 06:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

I appreciate you!

Hi there! Just wanted to drop a line and tell you how much I appreciate your use of the edit summary field. Cheers! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deaths from human-made causes in the twentieth and twenty first centuries

The article Deaths from human-made causes in the twentieth and twenty first centuries has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a poorly conceived WP:SYNTH type of article, deeply flawed, and difficult to see how it can be rescued. It fails on choice and definitions of main headings; on the overall time period chosen; on the mismatch between figures cited (e.g. for 2010) against the alleged scope (C20 & C21).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Human cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon and Andrew Davidson: I suppose I should state justf--koff, to one or both of you, but instead I send you this justgetflux, which perhaps looks like I'm experiencing confusion, but actually is because it is a good for stress caused by screen light during the night and I found it helpful. Hope the situation resolves well, but actually I really am committed to the subject of human-cause deaths, and am motivated to write the article, because I think it is important that people are able to see the information and appreciate the significance of the data with regards to global events and motivations for human behaviour.

sincerely, Sederecarinae (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Tagishsimon,

I have to retire now (to sleep) and won't be able to continue with the discussion till about midday tomorrow. I really urge you Tagishsimon to consider the validity of the article with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles, which doesn't contain anything especially which proves my position contrary to anyone elses, but is something which shows the encyclopedia was created for a purpose, and criticisms of articles should be directed against the validity of the subject not the quality of the article.

thanks, Sederecarinae (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is related. I assume the person has already seen the information elsewhere.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelling

@RoySmith:I was making additions in the article when you closed the article with a Rcat shell, so I had to retrieve the contents from the differences page instead of simply copying the contents from the article editorial screen prior to use of the shell. At the time of the shell I had sent a save, which resulted in a screen notification "Editorial conflict"; retrieving the contents was unnecessary time-consuming, to copy from the differences page because the text was including additional marks for use on the differences page, not found on the article editorial screen, so that I had to delete all these. Is not a criticism of yourself, just a courtesy, that you might check the History screen to see if there is an editor active in the article prior to shelling and to send them a message before using the shell. Not just for my benefit, but for the future benefit of any other editor in addition to myself.

thanks Sederecarinae (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following. What page are we talking about? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, you must be talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health food restaurant. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man, open this page and tell me if you see a cat, tell me if you see the cat on the page, it could take a few times of returning to the page maybe, if you see the cat, hit me up man. If you see the cat, I want to tell you, I'm not that cat. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Health food, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See the talk page. Zefr (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple article talk page forum shopping

Please stop adding WP:FORUMSHOP comments to article talk pages. It is not how consensus is built. (Hohum ^@) 18:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the recommended way to ask for more input on WP, see WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång Sederecarinae (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page conduct

Your continued posting to User talk:Iridescent despite being clearly requested not to is disruptive and bordering harassment. If you continue to revert their removal of your post, which they have every right to remove according to WP:BLANKING, you will likely find yourself blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh okay I didn't see WP:BLANKING, thought there was some scope for discussion on a subject at the talk page is all, thanks. Sederecarinae (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you could help me if you're not too busy ? I have to go off-line in any case, but the discussion I wanted to have is concerning a deleted article, is there someone who could give me some guidance because I'm a relatively new wikipedia user, perhaps there are editors who could help me to understand wikipedia, like guides or something? Sederecarinae (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is full of patient and helpful editors, assuming you're prepared to listen to their advice.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to gain access to the deleted version, but it is unaccessible on my contributions Sederecarinae (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and ask there, I'm not a troll, I just don't agree with policy, you could see for yourself on the meta: troll page > is not a troll > critics of wikipedia policy Sederecarinae (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely free to disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on a philosophical level, but you must abide by them if you wish to edit here as they represent the consensus of the community. Continuing to make the same requests in multiple venues and displaying an I didn't hear that attitute will quickly wear on editors' patience.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A letter articles has been nominated for discussion

Category:A letter articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unnatural death has been nominated for discussion

Category:Unnatural death, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ending of activity for today

@Beland: I'm closing my additions for today, and won't be opening to any additions again until the 27th. Since I made an error at the addition at 26 april 2019 at 18:23, deleted by Beland at 26 april 2019 at 20:01 = 1hrs 38 minutes, to Manner of death. Thanks Sederecarinae (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can edit whenever they please; I don't need a personal update when you go to sleep. We're in lots of different time zones so there's not even any universal meaning to "today". -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General communication on the subject

@Beland and Doc James: I was looking through Belands recent contributions to articles connected to "Manner of death", and found the existence of the Cause of death article, was thinking about adding a merger to Manner of death - in any case I found this National Museum of Crime & Punishment > "When a death occurs, a physician or medical examiner must fill out a death certificate. In order to properly complete this document, they must determine three things: the cause, the mechanism, and the manner of death. There is often confusion about which is which. The cause of death is the disease or injury that produces the physiological disruption inside the body resulting in death, for example, a gunshot wound to the chest. The mechanism of death is the physiological derangement that results in the death. An example of a mechanism of death due to the gunshot wound described above is exsanguination (extreme blood loss). https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/forensic-investigation/cause-mechanism-and-manner-of-death/" There is no mechanism of death article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Mechanism+of+death&title=Special:Search&go=Continuer&ns0=1, Sederecarinae (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just created the manner of death article to clarify the cause/manner confusion, and I think we might want to wait a bit before merging them. It's unclear to me which jurisdictions make a cause/mechanism distinction, but it might be worth explaining on cause of death. Some might just consider that the difference between proximal and ultimate causes. I'm not sure there's enough to say to warrant a separate article on mechanism of death, since both cause and mechanism are medical in nature, whereas manner of death is a legal categorization. Manner of death only mentions causes to explain the definitions of the categories; questions of epidemiology and biology are best left to cause of death and list of causes of death. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I too thought it is better to wait, because the article Manner of death could develop to contain too much information for merging. I did identify a few interesting sources yesterday > increased likelihood of death by accident and suicide in people with epilepsy, and Psychoactive substances in natural and unnatural deaths in Norway and Sweden – a study on victims of suicide and accidents compared with natural deaths in psychiatric patients, that could be used within the article. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

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

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 ~~~~}}. Sandstein 11:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-natural death and your recent contributions to other pages and concluded that your conduct overall is so disruptive that it is a net negative to Wikipedia. You are only interested in pushing through your idiosyncratic views related to the coverage of human death at any cost, ignoring that literally everybody else tells you that this is not how Wikipedia works, either procedurally (cf. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DEADHORSE), or on the merits of the content you add. Accordingly, you are indefinitely blocked. Sandstein 11:38, 28 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

the nature of the reasoning made by Sandstein I'd like to know if it is possible for the blocking editor to show evidence of how the claim that my conduct as an editor is disruptive, that I'm "only interested in pushing through your idiosyncratic views related to the coverage of human death at any cost", "ignoring that literally everybody else tells you that this is not how Wikipedia works", on the subject of "the merits of the content you add" - the content I've added to Manner of death of the seventeen edits made User: Beland after my contributions of 27 april 2019, none of the edits were reverted, this doesn't indicate to me that Beland considered my contributions were disruptive, who other than the blocking editor is claiming that my editorial behaviour is disruptive? please give the usernames of the other users to indicate support for your claim. Additionally if the blocking editor could elucidate this editor as to the indication of the meaning of the term "net negative" with repect to the conduct of this user. If I search on the internet I see on the first page "A condition in which a company's liabilities exceed its assets plus shareholders equity." vis-à-vis "and concluded that your conduct overall is so disruptive that it is a net negative to Wikipedia" Responses to these queries would be very much appreciated. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this users perception of this users editorial behaviour and conduct it is partially true my continuation of a position in contrary to a number of other editors, in the issue of argument for and against the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-natural death, was an erroneously placed support for my own position - this I had already appreciated before the decision of Sandstein - by rights of my observation of an error in the introduction that "Unnatural death is not natural disasters" is not actually true, obviously I was in genuine error on that issue, and it is unacceptable to misinform readers (it was a choice I made in error, not by desire to misinform) ... incidentally before I continue to state my position on the issue of behaviour and conduct, please though refer to Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion on support for my position on non-deletion. I consented to the decision of the article deletion and don't feel indignant towards the criticising editors involved, because the discussion benefited my understanding of the subject by the fact of the discussion being just that, a discussion. I felt it was unfair at the time, but after deletion I have sought to participate in an editorial process and accept the criticisms of other editors (specifically, only, Beland) in the hope of improving the encyclopedia. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:34, 29 April 2019 (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.

(talk page watcher) [1]...over to Iridescent perhaps. To my—limited—knowledge, only a few individuals have ever been banned from their talk page, and very few of whom were able to manage the feat within only a few months of joining the project as you have done. That alone should speak volumes. ——SerialNumber54129 16:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone clearly WP:INVOLVED I won't decline this myself, but whoever reviews this, please review all Sederecarinae's edits for the last couple of days. It's not just the obsession with creating inappropriate death-related content that's the issue; [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] are all from within the last couple of days. See also this thread on my talkpage (and the deleted article in question and its accompanying deletion discussion); see also fr:Spécial:Contributions/Sederecarinae and meta:Special:Contributions/Sederecarinae. ‑ Iridescent 2 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I consented to the decision of the article deletion is a flat-out lie; you immediately went to the closing admin's talkpage and ranted like a maniac until you had to be banned from commenting there. ‑ Iridescent 2 17:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I haven't reverted any of Sederecarinae's edits to manner of death is untrue. In fact, I have removed a fair amount of off-topic content, restored good content that was (perhaps accidentally) erased, and cleaned up after a change that started making claims that were probably untrue. Here and there Sederecarinae has added some interesting sources and information, but also a lot of excessive detail (some in articles and categories that have had to be deleted, and some in articles I'm still pruning). Personally, I was also pondering requesting that they be banned for doing more harm than good, but I decided to wait and give them an opportunity to learn from the outcome of the deletion discussions and get more familiar with Wikipedia's editorial and social conventions through regular article editing and feedback. A lot of editors' responses during the article deletion debates seemed to WP:BITE unnecessarily harshly, but then Sederecarinae also engaged in a lot of over-the-top argumentation, obtuse rambling, and childish foot stomping which is either really bad discussion skills or deliberate trolling. Despite more productive discussions on Talk:Manner of death, the overly argumentative behavior continues above with what appears to be pretending to not understand the phrase "net negative", so I am disappointed. If this user remains blocked, it will honestly be a relief not to have to monitor their contributions. -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of terror on the mind listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The effect of terror on the mind. Since you had some involvement with the The effect of terror on the mind redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]