Hello Uni3993,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Forebears.io for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Module:Citation has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one answered, but if it can be done, the people who would know are at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uni3993, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nigelj (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please don't change article titles like List of unsolved problems in statistics or List of unsolved problems in physics to include "notable" in their title, since these list articles consist only of notable items. Adding the word to title is not much use to readers. Thanks! – Aranya (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do appreciate you welcoming users but you're doing it incorrectly. Welcome messages or any message for that matter, are meant for talk pages not userpages. Please remove the messages you placed on the userpages before making similar edits. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove the welcome message from their userpages when you are placing it on their talk pages? Ashleyyoursmile! 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Hi Matt1298 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (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 any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. 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.

Template:Z33

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Template:Z33

--Jorm (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider working with cited sources for your edits to scientific method subjects - you're making a lot of changes without any kind of reference. I haven't checked to see if your preferred terminology agrees with the sources already present in the articles - you've been making a lot of changes that appear to be based on personal preference - most look fine, but there are some that change the sense in a way that looks questionable. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your recent edits on various science-related pages (e.g., [1],[2]), it's clear that you're inserting material that is not supported by mainstream scientific sources but is instead, based on your own personal opinions (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). Hence, your edits are likely to get undone. I strongly urge you to consult the talk pages first before making additional edits, particular to the lead. You are likely to make more progress that way. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When updating an article, please add the citation which justifies the change: This policy is for Wikipedia:Verifiability. To learn about citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Keeping citations close.

To add your citation,

On your editor screen, look for the blue link "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>". Click that link to add the outer part of the citation; you should see <ref>....''add the citation here''...</ref>

Put in the citation, using Wikipedia:Citing sources#Keeping citations close as your guide. For example <ref>Your reference [User talk:Uni3993 sample text ]</ref> just after the punctuation. This is called an inline reference.

If you need to practice, you can use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uni3993/sandbox for a space to practice editing the citation. The citation needs to be reliable, for it to survive.

You need to do this to keep your edits in the article; otherwise other editors will simply undo uncited work. This is the policy of the encyclopedia.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump suggests I point you to User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to undo your name change of the article that was formerly Causality, that you have changed to Causality (philosophy). I think the change was inappropriate. Whatever I might think, I feel sure that talk page discussion, and almost surely consensus, is needed for such a name change. I have requested editorial help because I ran into difficulty in trying simply to undo your change.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Causality dummy, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I favour speedy deletion. I was trying to do something but didn't exactly know how to do it. I have now requested editorial help.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page move. I recommend a discussion on the article talk page before it's moved again. An admin will delete the dummy page in due course. Hope this is okay. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your care.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your change at Reality where you redefined Reality in the lead sentence in terms of axioms. The article does not support this. You've been making quite a few of these changes that are getting reverted and seem to be just your own views, including moving an article to a new topic. Start making edits that add material with sources (references). StarryGrandma (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inductive reasoning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Uni3993, your causality page move broke the archiving on the Causality talk page. I also undid your other recent page move Idea --> Mental representation. Not only was the move not discussed anywhere, it also created an orphaned article, and it was a bad page move: the word 'idea' isn't mentioned anywhere on the article mental representation... Please be more careful and discuss sweeping changes to articles on the talk page first. -- Mvbaron (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move of Idea to Idea (philosophy). Please consider this a final warning to stop performing controversial page moves without consensus, as it is highly disruptive. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here or at ANI before making any other edits of the kind you've been doing. Acroterion (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your extended confirmed user right. You got this right automatically for making 500 edits, but the last several hundred of the edits you made leading up to the granting of the right were the creation of user talk pages, welcoming users who by and large, had no edits. This is not desirable. Hundreds of accounts are created every day that are never used, welcoming them is a waste of time and resources. Since the user right is for users who have shown they can be trusted, and you got it by doing something that shouldn't be being done, it seems only logical to revoke it. Only you can know if this was deliberate gaming of the system or not, but I notice you abruptly stop doing it as soon as you got the user right. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that says you can welcome only certain users @Beeblebrox. Uni3993 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a secondary concern. Why did you use the welcome feature in that manner? - it appears that you gamed the autoconfirmed user right. Additionally, you have ignored repeated warnings about moves, unsourced edits and general unresponsiveness.Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my actions agrees with wikipedia policies. If they don't please give examples and the URL to the relevant policy. You don't need to be a dictator. Wikipedia is alive because of donations from donors like me. If it wasn't for us common peoples money, you wouldn't even be an administrator here. Uni3993 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit in article space again without satisfactorily responding, I will block you from editing to give you an opportunity to respond. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding where? give me the URL Uni3993 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a notice in the section right above this one alerting you to discussion at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2021

Either here or preferably at WP:ANI#Persistent disruptive edits by Uni3993, as you were notified in the section above. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that I fully agree with Acroterion's remarks, but for the record the welcoming thing is noted at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users. While that deals with a welcome bot, the way you were doing it is indistinguishable from what a bot would be doing so the same principles apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't violate any wikipedia policy. Uni3993 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't responded to concerns over your unsourced edits, page moves and gaming autoconfirmed status. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]