User talk:SamZane

Welcome!

Hello, SamZane, 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:

You may also want to complete 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!--Biografer (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Khruner. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Sarah Parcak, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Khruner (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

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-1932 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strejc System Identification Method moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Strejc System Identification Method, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Strejc method has been accepted[edit]

Strejc method, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

(t · c) buidhe 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Inter Discount[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Inter Discount, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dutton (author)[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward Dutton (author). 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruption at Edward Dutton (author). Repeatedly removing the word "pseudoscientific" in relation to Mankind Quarterly as a "useless personal opinion", along with other aggressive edit summaries, is both tendentious and lazy. All the research you need to do is to click on the link to our article Mankind Quarterly and read about the journal's record in "scientific racism" and its membership of the category Category:Scientific racism, which is in turn a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. If you want to argue that the journal isn't pseudoscientific, please do that on the talkpage and not by edit warring. Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

And not by this kind of battleground editing either. You have been blocked from the page Edward Dutton (author) for two weeks for persistent disruption. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Note that you are not blocked from the article's talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Given this, I have extended your block on that article indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift the block if convinced you will stop being disruptive and stop battleground editing. --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yamla, I was just going to do it myself. I originally thought two weeks would be enough for the user to realize they need to edit the article more collaboratively, but apparently it wasn't: they have clearly expressed an intention to just wait out the two weeks and then continue as before. So an indefinite page block it is. SamZane, see my note above for how you can appeal the block to an uninvolved admin. Bishonen | tålk 22:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Considering their intended slam at me, accusing me of restoring "pseudoscientific" because I am (supposedly) "a member of Antifa" [1], and their comment to Bishonen, cited by Yamla, accusing her of "defending Marxist editors" (presumably meaning me), and claiming that Edward Dutton (author) presents "only the marxist point of view", it seems likely to me that SamZane is incapable of editing political articles from an NPOV. It is probably worthwhile keeping an eye on their editing in case a AmPol ban is needed, or some other more drastic sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out this anti-Semitic edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this pro-Nazi one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]