User talk:Intelligent boy 13

March 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Albert Einstein, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Unfortunately the new content you attempted to add had several grammatical errors, and was not properly sourced or encyclopedic. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but at the moment you are not adding grammatically correct sentences to Albert Einstein, which is regarded as a good article. Randomly inserting editorial comments is not helpful, e.g. "But he refused to accept existence of gravitational waves in 1936." Content like that is likely to be reverted by other editors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So would you correct it grammatically. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add another paragraph regarding it ? Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Centripetal force. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Black hole and Einstein's unsuccessful investigations, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the website that you are trying to spam all over the place does not qualify as a wp:reliable source. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Isaac Newton. DVdm (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I added to Issac Newton is correct, I linked it . Show me reasons. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Intelligent boy 13: The fact that Newton mentioned something that came to be known as centripetal force, doesn't imply that Newton was known for his description of the centripetal force. You would need a reliable source to add that. Note, Wikipedia itself, is not a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then can I add centipetal force in his " List of his other works " ? Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you have a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does book counts for reliable source Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could. It depends on the book. However, it must say that centripetal force is one of Newton's works and not merely that it was something Newton talked about. Works in this context must be a major work. Constant314 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Statics has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information. "You are using synthesis, which is not allowed. See WP:SYN. You cited Newton's own work as a source for the statement "Isaac Newton contributed to statics". Whether or not Newton's work is a "contribution" requires the judgement of time. In this case, it is your own judgement. You need a reliable source that says Newton's work was a contribution. Constant314 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Rosehip neuron. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You added content about the clinical significance of the rosehip neuron with a reliable source, but the source did not mention clinical significance. The only content that is acceptable is content paraphrased from a reliable source. Constant314 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English

Regarding [1]: Please learn English before you make such erroneous corrections. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy within

Regarding [2]: Don't copy from other articles (Newton's laws of motion). See wp:COPYWITHIN. - DVdm (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2022

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. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been persistently vandalising the article Isaac Newton. That might result in you being blocked by an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci:. I'm not seeing any deliberate vandalism from this user so please stop levelling that accusation. His edits show a great deal of incompetence, but he hasn't written much that is out and out wrong. Poorly formatted and/or inserted in an inappropriate article, yes, but vandalism, no. I would have been thinking of blocking him at this point if editors on this page had been a little more collegial and helpful to him instead of the newbie bashing I'm seeing here. SpinningSpark 11:58, 12 March 2022 (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. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, synthesis, and discretion.

Hello. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Some of your edits appear to be original research or synthesis. I made these same mistakes when I first started editing Wikipedia. You are stating conclusions that are reasonable to you (and even to me, in some cases) and then citing sources as evidence for that conclusion. That is fine for an essay or a research paper, but not for Wikipedia. We only allow material that is paraphrased from reliable sources or copied from reliable public domain sources. Please review WP:OR and WP:SYN. You cannot say that Newton contributed to statics and cite his works as an example. You need a reliable source that says Newton contributed to statics. I think it is possible that you may find such a source.

That brings up the second issue, which is discretion. Wikipedia articles should be complete and focused. There is no need to include every fact related to the subject of the article. Minor facts bloat the article with minutia for the reader to slog through. Please see WP:COAT. No one is born with discretion; it comes from experience. No one will penalize you for poor discretion. However, if you add material to an article and another editor removes it, and you think that the material should be there, then you should open a discussion on the talk page of the article. There you can seek a consensus to insert the material. If you simply reinsert the material, you may be accused of edit warring. That can get you blocked.

Finally, please review WP:BRD. The idea is that if you see a need in an article for new material or a correction, then be bold and do it. Another editor may revert or substantially undo your edit. Don’t be offended. Instead, be collaborative. Open a discussion on the talk page about your proposed edit. You may be reverted for many reasons ranging from a simple grammatical error to a major factual error. Try to reach a consensus before continuing. It can take a lot of time. Don’t be discouraged. As you learn the quirks of what the other editors consider to be good editing, you will find that your contributions are less likely to be reverted. Constant314 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss the use of reliable sources and avoiding original research. Constant314 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your Wikipedia edits

Hello, Intelligent boy 13. Please see:

WP:AN3#User:Intelligent boy 13 reported by User:Mathsci (Result: )

This report was a complaint about your recent editing of Wikipedia. Consider responding to the complaint. Since almost all your changes are being undone by others, it seems possible that you ought to be taking your efforts elsewhere. You may be out of your depth on the topics you are choosing to work on. An administrator who reads this report may conclude that your further editing is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Let me know if I can answer any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent boy, I hope you will reply when you next come back to edit Wikipedia. Time is running out. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would ask you, doesn't it seem suspicious that same persons are undoing my edits. It seems like they are keeping an eye on me. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not suspicious. You have made a lot of bad edits. That is causing people to look at your edit history to see what else you have been doing. So yes, they are keeping an eye on you to protect the encyclopaedia. You should consider that a good thing. SpinningSpark 17:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark, pls check my contribution to bangladesh - Kuwait relation. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say every edit was bad. SpinningSpark 17:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CIR.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|reason=Newton's metal is mentioned in " Things named after Isaac Newton

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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In Isaac Newton article's "known for" Newton's Metal is mentioned

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. Yamla (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2022 (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.

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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understood my mistakes and I promise to make my contribution with help of administrators who are willing to help Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Administrators are not mentors; you can possibly find a mentor at WP:AAU once unblocked. To be unblocked, however, you need to describe what your mistakes were and tell what you will contribute about. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (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.

To elaborate on that decline, no administrator is going to unblock you unless they are convinced that you understand what you have been doing wrong. So you need to state explicitly what you think has gone wrong. More than that, you need to state how you intend to avoid similar mistakes in the future. If you want more detailed advice, I might be able to help you by e-mail. You can find a link in the side-box on my user page. SpinningSpark 08:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to contribute on stubs. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to post this article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft:Phage_vB_PagP-SK1&create=Create+new+article+draft# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent boy 13 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= I realised my mistake, I hope to never do it again. I will work carefully}} {{unblock|reason= I realised my mistake, I hope to never do it again. I will work carefully}} Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC) {{unblock|reason= I realised my mistake, I hope to never do it again. I will work carefully}}[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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I realised my mistake, I hope to never do it again. I will work carefully Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, so you've said four times. But you need to tell us what you'll do differently instead of just saying "I understand it". Anyone can say they understand something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2022 (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.

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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will work with suggestions of administrators,I will abide by the rules and regulations of Wikipedia

Decline reason:

As with all the ones above, you aren't being specific. It's assumed that someone editing carefully and well will comply with our rules (at least to sufficient degree to avoid being blocked). We want to know what specifically you will do differently. What does careful editing look like in practice to you? What rules are you more aware of now? What relevant detail out of guide to appealing blocks do you think is most relevant to us? Etc, etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2022 (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.

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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will specially contribute to stubs this time

Decline reason:

Only make one request at a time please. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2022 (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.

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).

Intelligent boy 13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will specially contribute to stubs this time

Decline reason:

As the previous decline said, we’ll need more detail. Please read Nosebagbear’s message carefully and address it in slightly more detail than one sentence. firefly ( t · c ) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (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.

Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Phage vB PagP-SK1

Hello, Intelligent boy 13. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Phage vB PagP-SK1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #75536

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Soldier

96.227.223.203 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]