User talk:Wilkn

Welcome to wikipedia, below I am putting a message that was given to me when I first arrived here, which has some useful info...

Welcome!

Hello, Wilkn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

You might also find the Mathematics Project page useful. Thenub314 (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Unified Framework, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Rigvedic deities were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Please feel free to start new sections/threads rather than extending old ones. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kautilya3(talk). My apologies for the error! Wilkn (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will be mindful of that. Sorry for my error(s)

Wilkn (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity

You are trying to include unsourced material at Infinity, and it is being reverted. Please stop inserting unsourced material. If you need advice on how to reference the material, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation is incorrect. Please substantiate it or withdraw it.Wilkn (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Infinity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. We don't add content with citation needed tags and blogs such as https://www.researchgate.net/pos as sources. See wp:reliable sources. Also, when some someone reverts your edit, you should go to the article talk page and discuss—see wp:CONSENSUS, wp:BRD and wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The change is properly cited using the book, please see citation 1. Kindly, do not revert properly sourced changes. If you have a counter source or a challenge, produce it. Please see reliable source for proper sources to counter a properly sourced material.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Infinity. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Infinity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (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. DVdm (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Discretionary sanctions

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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.

These sanctions apply for content relating to the Upanishads etc even if on pages that are not titled as such. —SpacemanSpiff 00:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

topic banned for six months from any content, discussions and/or editing related to Upanishads or philosophy of the Indian subcontinent, across any and all name spaces on the English Wikipedia.

You have been sanctioned you've been helped, reasoned with, explained to and also warned about this behavior multiple times but continue the same actions again and again.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —SpacemanSpiff 05:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory note: This means that you can not add, remove or edit content related to the Upanishads or any other aspect of the philosophy of the Indian subcontinent anywhere on the English Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, categories, templates etc or discuss such content on talk pages, user talk pages or Wikipedia space etc. —SpacemanSpiff 05:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I'm sorry, Wilkn, but whether your topic ban above was "unfair" or not, it was validly applied, and so it's in force. You need to abide by it, even if you decide to appeal it via the instructions above. I was going to just drop a warning after your first post to the Talk:Infinity page, but when you posted again, indicating that you were aware of the ban and didn't care about it, that kind of made a warning irrelevant. So it's come to this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for the violation of your topic ban, as you did at Talk:Infinity. 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 ~~~~}}. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry Writ_Keeper, your ban is valid. I did violate the ban, its fairness is my perspective. From my point of view, though, it is my responsibility to stand up for the right. You have your duty to take care of, me, I have to take care of my ethics. No hard feelings. It is my responsibility to defend the edit as long as I find that it is valid against irrationality on the part of some of the editors. Wilkn (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Punished for being a father

The article Punished for being a father has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

book with no sources or claim of notability

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. b uidhe 05:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir! I added the link to the book and am also going to continuously attempt to improve the page in the next few days. ~wilkn

Nomination of Punished for being a father for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Punished for being a father 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/Punished for being a father 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. b uidhe 05:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Hello again.  In view of your topic of editing interest it is probably for the best that you are aware of the discretionary sanctions operating in the area. Please see below --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@slp1 Thank you Madam for the information!

WP:ANI

Reported. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked based on the complaint, but was not allowed to offer my rebuttal. Please see the rebuttal below Wilkn (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2020 (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.

hatting extended unblock request content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I only responded to repeated, unwarranted personal attacks on me, my gender and the credibility of the movement by the above editor. I will rebut the editor in three ways. One by using the above complaint against her. Two by producing some snippets from our interaction. Three, by inviting you to visit and read the whole conversation to get an idea. Additionally, I will not talk about the referred admin whom, though I still believe she is biased, I find way more graceful than Ms. Flyer22, because she has not represented herself and has not explicitly that she will be represented by Flyer22.

The editor indicts herself in the complaint itself

If you look at the complaint. She is using my quote from the Bible to portray me in bad light. It is like holding me accountable for a death or birth in 3000 years ago. I did not write the Bible - It was written long before any one reading this was conceived and will most probably last long after any of us will be perceived.I can understand Ms. Flyer does not like the excerpt, but for that I respectfully suggest to her to open a new complaint against Saint Timothy who is attributed to have written the cited excerpt.

Moving further down the line - she is herself generalizing my conduct to my gender and the contents of the page and the movement. Because I am bad, therefore all the proponents of Men's rights movement are bad and therefore the page which she accepts portrays the movement in a bad light accurately depicts the movement. Obviously, she is clearly accepting here that the movement is portrayed in a bad light and she is the reason for that portrayal. Additionally, the editor states that the article is not in WP:NPV

The editor violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA, per the interaction the page

"Trying to add my opinion in the name of scientific research? Oh please...And don't go mucking up that article" violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA

"Your above rant is off in a number of ways. It's clear that you don't understand WP:MEDRS, WP:Due weight and WP:False balance. You need to try to understand those rules." violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA

"You calling me "Ms." just shows your line of thinking." How can calling a woman Ms. be offensive?

"And as for attacking you and personally disagreeing with sources? This is about how Wikipedia works." Is this how Wikipedia works? Personal attacks on a man by a woman are okay, disagreeing with a source cited by a man is okay - but if a man addresses a woman as Ms. or cites from The Bible, he should be "punished?"

"..including pedophiles and the like, mind you.." She is using literary juggling to insinuate a pedophile!

Invitation to view our interactions

As they say the proof of the pudding is in its eating. I invite you to kindly visit the interaction here to see for yourself and make determinations about any violations. Talk:Men's rights movement#"A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet"

In conclusion, I respectfully ask that Ms. Flyer22 be warned because she violated WP:NPA as she admitted that the article Men's Right Movement negatively highlights the movement; she violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA and generalized her perception about my conduct to men and the men's right movement. If the administrator(s), in their discretion, find that my conduct was improper - I invite commensurate sanctions. Thanks!! Wilkn (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

In every court of law - a person is charged and allowed to offer their rebuttal. Is Wikipedia worse than even them? It is unclear as to why I was blocked. I am just conjecturing below.

I am happy our human civilization has progressed. About 2000 years ago, a person by the name Jesus Christ was crucified because he stood by the Bible. I am just blocked from editing on Wikipedia for standing by the same book. (Not a bad deal! :-))

Respectfully, I stand by the the text I quoted 1 Timothy 2:12 through 2:15 is from the Bible as I stand by each and every word of each and every edit that I have made on Wikipedia. If it means I should be blocked from editing - I accept the block with all the humility and respect it deserves!!

I am trying my best to assume good faith, but there seems none. Because I edited men's right movement - I should be blocked? I think the block is unfair and reeks of censorship of Wikipedia by vested interests. Even if we assume that the complaint is proper, it is such a small incident and an indefinite block is such a serious reprisal. Similar to as in China, I will work towards getting a replacement of Wikipedia in India or having it blocked here altogether. Wilkn (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

You weren't blocked for editing men's right movement, you were blocked for saying that another editor was less than human. When you're ready to treat your fellow editors with the respect that everyone deserves, you can apply to UTRS for an unblock. Until then, you won't be able to continue your attacks here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkn, did you put out a call on Facebook for helping dealing with "bad actors" on Wikipedia and post your request on Men's Rights message boards? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]