Uditanalin
|
Your submission at Articles for creation
edit
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fractional Differential Equation.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! :- ) Don 04:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fractional Differential Equation
editI can not move this to your sandbox without deleting the sandbox first. I can move it to User:Uditanalin/Fractional Differential Equation for an example. You can move things yourself if you are careful. The part before the colon indicate the namespace. Your article is currently in "Wikipedia talk:" name space. You can move it to "User:" namespace with your user name, and anything after "/" is subdirectory. I will watchlist your page, so you can leave a message here, but I will see it quicker if you leave a not on my talkpage. -- :- ) Don 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Uditanalin. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method
edit
Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Anita5192 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Finding Eigenvectors: Fast and Nontraditional Method, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You removed my comment. do not do this again! Whpq (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ Whpq-- That was not intentional. I was replying to SmokeyJoe and deleted your comment by mistake and did not know how to revert back. Sorry again, that was not intentional. When we make a productive argument we should listen to all parties involved. Everyone has good ideas. I'm sorry Whpq Uditanalin (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
ANI
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
MfD tags
editThe MfD tag goes at the top of the page and not the bottom. Based on you moving it to the bottom more than once and your comment stating that you would continue to do so, here, I have fully protected the page to avoid your edit warring and blocking. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020
edit
Your recent editing history at Eigenvalues and eigenvectors 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.
- I just undid your removal of my work. Please stop this simple stupidity. Look at the importance of once work rather than fitting for nothing. If you ever block me I'll create another account, probably hundreds to edit the page. I'll keep doing it until you guys understand the importance of it. I'm not a big fan of policies. I only see what is right and should have been doing. Other things are just potatoes for me. Uditanalin (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Whpq I do not care about those rules. If you ever block me, I'll create another account for my editing. Are you going to block them all. Please stop this simple stupidity. Uditanalin (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, this is your final warning. Do not use Wikipedia to promote your own original research. If you continue then you will be blocked. See also WP:COI. Guy (help!) 16:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- If the page is ever deleted I'll create it again. I'll continue to do that until you understand the importance of it. Creating an account is nothing. Uditanalin (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK, so now I blocked you. And if you try to bypass the block, any new accounts will also be blocked, and you'll be permanently banned. I won't list the range of tools we have to stop you carrying out your silly threat, but suffice it to say that waging war on the Wikipedia administrators in order to bring The Truth™ has worked in exactly no cases so far. Guy (help!) 17:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 17:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- @Guy So you did block me ..... Do you know that I can still edit anything on the WikiPedia. I have an administrative account, which I will not disclose at this time. Anyway. I can wait. Once you understand your mistake, you can go ahead and unlock me. You are simply contradicting WikiPedia norms itself. WikiPedia is for educating people providing a free platform for the community.
user:WhpqGuy and one more I person removed the contents that I posed on the main Eigenvalue and Eigenvector page. That is for people to learn not to make a fun of it. How you can work for WikiPedia without knowing those simple idea behind. I do not ask your help to unblock me because you guys do not deserve that. However, one you understand your mistake and stupidity, you can unblock me. I want to get it done the right way. I have more important things than editing wikis until then. P.S. I have already created 15 other accounts and can use anytime. Have a nice day! Uditanalin (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Uditanalin, I think it's likely that I understand Wikipedia policy better than you do, given our edit histories here.
- People have already explained how to get your content into Wikipedia: get it published in a reliable independent source, propose it on the Talk page, and let others add it. Instead you chose to edit war. Bear in mind that most of us have no dog in this fight, the problem is solely one of garden variety WP:OR and self promotion. Guy (help!) 08:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 03:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)=== Stupidity does not have a place in education or anything to do with intelligence. I know power abuses are everywhere and that's something I do not care. You guys are some of those. Once you understand your own mistakes, go ahead and unblock. I have edited/corrected more than thousand articles with different accounts. I have more important things than editing these wiki articles. Most of the nice people are either selfish or have already given up. It needs some level of intelligence to understand this. Thank you. Uditanalin (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uditanalin, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
== I do not know how to work with idiots. You guys are simply contradicting very idea of WikiPedia. I started editing wiki even before you guys know about it. There is no point wasting more time with you. I also see that your group has connected some other accounts to me. user:Wikiprojects is mine and it is clear from my open discussions. The talk page been completely deleted leaving this comment. Do not bring this back. I have no time to waste with WikiPedia.utalk Uditanalin (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Uditanalin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see below
Decline reason:
Given your rants above about how you're going to engage in sock puppetry, I'm revoking your talk page access. You're obviously some random troll, and you're not going to be given a platform to continue trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2020 (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.
@SwisterTwister I'm asking some action by @SwisterTwister. Please investigate the actions of the admin, Anita5192. it has been very abusive lately and caused several unnecessary actions by others causing more problems. Without proper investigations, it blocked several accounts. I do not think this is an appropriate behavior within the Wikipedia community.utalk 01:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)