I have noticed that the quotation marks are being used in an Italian mode such as »word«, «and». We are talking in the corrector "word" and it is confusing the first best out loading for first. This is not good and should using out of the why. Please fix the problems and the fr33kman17:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: without waves = moon (lunar cycles - the /c/ breaks on the sure (the man-beach-standing is not sure - uncertainty - tainted)) + [118 is (if in the United States: ju jitsu if not, avoid with extreme prejudice) (if in England: it was the best they could do old chap, without it we would have been a goner)] (it's cryptic!) (PSYCHOANALYSIS A: my charge: see WilliAm GAtes for the Bill) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-ban discussion on Simple talk
Hello,
because of the changes you made to Schizophrenia, there is now a discussoion on Simple talk, about restricting your rights to edit some or all articles on this Wiipedia. You have added a lot of text, and much of it has problems: One of them is that it isn't easy to understand. I would likey you to take note of that discussion; you are welcome to add your views as well. Eptalon (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon:@Fr33kman: I noticed the bytes count is rising in contradiction to the agreement we made at Talk so decided to disconnect again for peer-review and any comments. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The changes I made are in the intro (reviewing of the recent changes) and "psychotic symptoms" Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) My bytes change was 5587, by Eptalon was 3809 + 220 + 317 + 930 + 347 = 5616 approximately (as not including deletions & Fr33kman) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 5587 +16 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work on Schizophrenia you are doing a really good job. It is much easier to read than it was and breaking it up into smaller articles is having the wanted effect. :) fr33kman19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove quick deletion tags from articles, as you did to "(1874 - 1641)", without a good reason. If you think the article should not be deleted, please add ((wait)) to the article and explain your reason on the article's talk page. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a reason, r3 doesn't apply, you're stating is not a good reason - but isn't a typo... and you didn't respond so users of the link will be redirected to the redirect not the landing page Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on the talk page of the redirect. (1874 - 1641) is not a valid year range in most contexts, and it's so ambiguous that it shouldn't exist as a redirect. It doesn't say what the date range is about. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained on the talk page and here also - the redirect is a graphic for the context of the redirect specifically for the article so that the redirect doesn't show the exact sub-heading at the landing page Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of (1874 - 1641), a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page14:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of Sz, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Tsugarulet's talk! :)01:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
November 2023
This is the only warning you will get for your disruptive comments. If you make another personal attack on another person, you will be blocked for disruption. Talk about the changes editors have made, not the editors. Do NOT call people fascists.QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have any as I viewed a few pages of your edits: I meant the things you looked at at Simple Talk: but I'd like to know thoughts on the article, if you have any Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke
An editor has requested deletion of Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Sjö (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for one month for disruptive editing.
This is just a comment as I'm very much involved in the discussion in the ST thread, but you should not post three different unblock requests (just make one), and no, a discussion is not always necessary before blocking. But in this case, there was a discussion in Simple Talk and it seems clear that your poor English is getting to the point of being very disruptive.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page13:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is one version of the reality and I don't see "poor english" (or a paraphrase) being mentioned as a reason.
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As I indicated the reason given was "completely fails" to which my response is this isn't true and this is provable by copypasting the article into the Flesch-Kincaid calculators. So what I'm stating is the blocking editor's rationalle for the block: "As it stands this article totally fails WP:SI...complex material.." is patently and provably not true (please view for yourself to verify (obviously from the title to the reference heading not with the references and including the reference numbers (greater FK = lower other scores is the necessary version of txt to reiterate): the score at https://www.online-utility.org/ is 67.57 which is approximate with https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ the Gunning Fog is synonomous with 50 to 60 in FK goodcalculators.com which is below, other than the GF & SMOG (both of which are 10~) the "Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text" is 8.34-.42 (8th grade: inputing anything into the https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ provides the grades and scores to locate what it is I'm referring to here, the link to GF here shows the grade per years) which synonomous to FK within 60 to 70, but the FK score when I startd (14:46, 10 October 2023) was 41.08, GF was 14.09, "Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text" was 12 - 13), so isn't a reason. What I'm stating is: as you indicated, a discussion occured, a consensus was reached the administrator proceeded, but the argument-reasons do not exist in reality, are false, are faulty, are not legitimate: this is not my biased opinion if you view the scores the error of the consensus is obvious. So proceeding from the rationalle will not bring about a process where-by reality is observed - as reason - so reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Providing support for someone with no valid reason provides a variety of possible responses of which there is no possile defence - I cannot defend my position because people arguing against me, are not using legitimate reason, so there is no possible reasonable argument that could find any audience - that is to have any way of changing the situation. If all members involved provide support for each other against someone (i.e. myself) this is simply stating solidarity is a reason (if solidarity is taken as being synonomous with consensus). The administrator proceeded from a non-valid cause which is presumed «reason» so reality: and by blocking has effected the reality in actuality. Actually made the reality a block from the reality of an argument in Talk from the reason "fails" so the sequence is "fails" (1) → disussion with the apprearance of reason (or logic) (2) → has proceeded to act on the discussion (3): the sequence cannot proceed to 3 because 1 isn't valid. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block is for continually pushing back on feedback and making articles considerably harder for a typical person to read. Your block is not for failing to reduce the FK score of articles (which formed the premise of the entire block appeal). The long convoluted writing in the above block appeal suggests that the point is being missed entirely. -- ChenzwTalk09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]