User talk:D2sk

Welcome!

Hello, D2sk, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:D2sk, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ishtiak Abdullah (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:D2sk

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:D2sk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. Ishtiak Abdullah (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:D2sk. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Compute!'s Gazette, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The source is the magazine article itself. D2sk (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Compute!'s Gazette. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and the more experienced editor who repeatedly deleted my good faith edits did not follow the best practice to improve the content. Instead, the merely undid my work. D2sk (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It was three different editors who undid your edits, not one. You've now attempted to force your content into the article four times. Do you suppose a fifth time will be the charm, that suddenly everyone will see you were right and justified? How about six times? Ten? Twenty? When do you suppose it will all stop and everyone will see you were right after all? Please follow dispute resolution processes. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope you supply the others with the same admonitions. Instead of improving as is the best practice they simply undid, which is petty and unwelcoming. Perhaps I encountered three pretentious editors who colluded against a new contributor for reasons only they can identify. D2sk (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There's no need to admonish them. You're the one that keeps fighting against their removals, not them. Also, I want to be directly blunt and crystal clear here; stop referring to people in negative terms, such as the above 'pretentious' comment, asserting nefarious deeds such as 'collu[sion]', and claiming people have a chip on their shoulder. If you can't make posts without insulting people, then you won't have the privilege of posting at all. Such comments are a direct violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and will NOT be tolerated. Such insults are a comment on you, and have absolutely no weight in convincing people you are correct and they are wrong. I strongly suggest you stop doing so. Consider this a final warning. The next insult that happens will result in a block of your editing privileges. If any of this is unclear, ASK. Continuing as you have with your insults is not an option if you want to continue editing here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a question I hope you can provide some clarity on. When it comes to the relevance of factual information in Wikipedia articles, is that relevance determined based on empirical grounding and verifiable sources, or is it more subjectively interpreted by editors?

More specifically: if a recognized expert in a given field makes a declaration of fact—supported by their credentials or published work—is the inclusion of that information dependent on an objective standard or process? Or is it ultimately subject to editorial discretion or consensus, even if the information itself is accurate and well-supported?

I’m asking in good faith to better understand how Wikipedia incorporates new or evolving expert knowledge into its content. Thank you in advance for your time and insight. D2sk (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It is subject to WP:OR. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. So if the work is published elsewhere, is it still considered WP:OR ? D2sk (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

If you can cite their published work, especially if it's peer-reviewed or otherwise WP:RS, you're good to go. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)