User talk:Eritr

Welcome!

Hello, Eritr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NomadBSD

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 NomadBSD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NomadBSD. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Things have changed in the last three years! Eritr (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Copying material from other websites into Wikipedia

It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted JBW (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Where do you read "all rights reserved"? Eritr (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

and by the way, it was one sentence. Your concern is exaggerated, for just one sentence. Eritr (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I read "All rights reserved" at the bottom of every page that I have looked at on the site https://www.freebsd.org; for example, https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies/. JBW (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't visited freebsd.org in a very long time; maybe you are confusing me with another user, or maybe you are confusing freebsd.org with another website. Eritr (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2026

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. 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. –GM 20:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. –GM 16:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with edit warring, because I'm politely laying out my point of view on the talk page. You're spamming the same template, and it's completely unnecessary. Eritr (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm GregariousMadness. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. –GM 17:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, they are constructive, fully justified, and extensively explained on the talk page. Please refrain from reverting other users' edits just because you don't like them. Eritr (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop forcibly WP:POVPUSHING when there is no consensus to add those tags. You are being WP:DISRUPTIVE. –GM 07:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No, because "At least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." Eritr (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. So should we add an inline tag to the statement "The Earth is round" because there is at least one editor who believes that the Earth is flat? Absolutely not, because such a POV is WP:UNDUE and not supported by any reliable sources, whereas the opposite view is supported by reliable sources. This is the last time I'm responding to you, because I'm convinced you are trolling me at this point. –GM 08:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

"there is at least one editor who believes that the Earth is flat" No, there is at least one editor who finds no record in the only authoritative source on the topic concerning the academic credentials held by this '15'. Eritr (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Eritr, you're overstepping the line now. The MIT alumni database is an unpublished primary source (and your access may additionally be limited or redacted, but that's not my point). Personal interpretation of primary sources is original research; such interpretation includes making a definitive statement about whether a pseudonymous individual is in there with their real name or not. Information for Wikipedia articles must come from published, preferably secondary, sources (WP:V, WP:PSTS). It is perfectly fine for you to have questioned the accuracy of the statements in the article about the person, and it's also fine for you to have removed the claim from the List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni for now, but if you start treating your interpretation of an unpublished primary source as "the only authoritative source", you start going against WP:PSTS which prefers secondary sources known for their editorial oversight to primary sources, and against WP:V which requires sources for Wikipedia to have been published. From Wikipedia's point of view, your source is not "the only authoritative" one but a prohibited one that couldn't be used for statements in the article. And even if you are right about 15's claims being wrong, if you continue bringing the same dispute to multiple pages or edit war while this is under discussion, you'll end up blocked from editing site-wide and possibly without automatic expiry date.

I don't want to argue with you in response to this message; it is a warning and such a block would happen regardless of whether you agree with it or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt as there seems to have been some (see the discussion at the edit warring noticeboard for details if you like but they're not relevant to this message here) ...

Please do not continue to revert. In any article, any edit that has reverted one of yours. Treat the two weeks as a kind of probation, please.

Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –GM 07:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. –GM 07:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (15 (software engineer)) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page. Alternatively, add the following text directly to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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. –GM 08:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your recent edits appear to be disruptive. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits that are also constructive and in line with our policies.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Any administrator may freely unblock you in response to an unblock request that agrees to a topic ban from 15.ai, broadly construed, as a binding unblock condition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

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).

Eritr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello, I sent this email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org (also introducing myself with my full name) and I was told to write it here. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Hello, I am writing as a member of the MIT Alumni Association.
The article 15 (software engineer) claims that an entity going by "15" graduated from MIT. Those adding this information claim to have read it in "reliable sources," but these websites and blogs merely repeat what "15" itself claims or what is already written on Wikipedia. Please note that it is not even clear whether "15" refers to one person or more than one. Specifically, "15" claims to have earned three degrees in physics, computer science, and mathematics. However, there is no record in the MIT alumni database of anyone having received these three degrees and being of an age consistent with that of "15". This therefore appears to be false information, or at the very least inaccurate information which should only be included once it has been properly verified. As an alumnus, I have direct access to the database, but anyone can carry out the same verification by submitting a request to MIT. It would have been enough simply to omit the claim that "15" earned degrees from MIT, but to settle the matter — without actually resolving it — someone chose to block/ban my account (Eritr). Could you please correct this information and reinstate my account? Thank you.

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. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Hello Eritr, you can talk to the "someone" directly in response to this message here. Someone is a bit fed up with your Wikipedia behavior, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

No thank you, there is no need to reactivate my account: I want nothing to do with anyone who spreads fake news. There are even those spreading the additional fake news that I am a "sockpuppet" (but also "a troll") and frankly I am disgusted. We will discuss this at the next MIT alumni meeting and evaluate how to bring media attention to this matter. Have a great day Eritr (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eritr: As your welcoming editor, I note that you appeared to be edit warring & failing to come to consensus. I welcome that you will discuss this with fellow MIT alumni (hopefully including fellow MIT alumni editors). Please refer them to this comment. As people who appreciate academic rigor & probably manuals of style, I am hopeful that they can help you in appropriately discussing these issue on Wikipedia talk pages & obtaining general agreement. Peaceray (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if you're enjoying making fun of me, but I'd be curious to know how a blocked account can "discuss these issues on Wikipedia talk pages." For the record, also, someone deleted my talk page discussions, so going to discuss things on talk pages is totally pointless since anyone trying to push fake news has zero interest in knowing the actual facts and will just wrap up the issue by wiping everything 😀 Eritr (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You do, in fact, control at least two other accounts.

• MartaBucci (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Seltr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Izno (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

"I control"... no, you blocked someone else's account, though I doubt anyone would care since they seem to be dormant. Prior to this, I was also accused of being a sockpuppet for other people who I don't know. All in all, these seem like pretexts to waste time and deflect from the real issue of fake news. Eritr (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Denial that you own those accounts is a good way never to be unblocked. Izno (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)