User talk:Text mdnp

A tag has been placed on Pietro Perconti requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.unime.it/it/persona/pietro-perconti/curriculum. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hegemony / Utilitarianism / Framing (social sciences) / Interpretation (logic) / Schema (psychology) / Social theory / Soft power / Might makes right Text mdnp (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Pocket algorithm for training perceptrons https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/51200/pocket-algorithm-for-training-perceptrons
• http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/neural/perceptron.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayal_trauma#Institutional_betrayal
• "Ghetto tax": Free market as feedback loops of pathos to capitalism progress experiment **link del**

Text mdnp (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shining_Ones&oldid=prev&diff=943890723

• Gnostics; Adrenaline; Paranoia; Ritual; Voodoo; Lucifer
• 'Moral judgments can be altered ... by magnets' http://news.mit.edu/2010/moral-control-0330 (Anne Trafton, MIT News Office Publication Date: 30iii2k10rdg)

'Effects of short and long term electromagnetic fields exposure on the human hippocampus' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025790/

• Retrocausality/Precognition - LeBel, Etienne P.; Peters, Kurt R. (January 2011). "Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem's (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 15 (4): 371–379. doi:10.1037/a0025172. S2CID 51686730. Retrieved 2 November 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20120103233037/http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf Text mdnp (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Roko's basilisk; Philip K Dick (non fictional aspects). Text mdnp (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Para-political work-arounds to societal gatekeepers via tabloid/wiki content &c (implied). Text mdnp (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Strange attractors" (rituals for glamour herding) vs Strange attractor; Spooky effect at a distance; Parabolic entropy. Text mdnp (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Owen Benjamin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The above user Wallyfromdilbert has to proove they are non a agenda based editor - my edits utilised standard english to describe what was already sourced - I was creating a more objective frame to what was already there (I refuse to tolerate/source random websites so as to non feed into neo-tabloid culture run amok &c). This kind of "selective editing" rhetoric & reversions has soured my relationship with Wikipedia's already problematic para-officialdom. Text mdnp (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Text mdnp! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Deus Ex (video game) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Thank-you UncleBubba for that pointer - I did feel I was only changing a para-semantical fold issue, ergo a "minor edit"? Text mdnp (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

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-1992 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. — Newslinger talk 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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. — Newslinger talk 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oops, wrong one. Please see below. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

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. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Newslinger? Wikipedia is obviously being used by many as a de'facto para-political forum to work-around societal gatekeepers. As all my edits are for bettering the article in a objective manner (I get it). I notice my edits & talks on less identity politics featured articles go unmolested (& create better articles). Text mdnp (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Text mdnp, the above messages are standard notices issued to editors who demonstrate interest in controversial topic areas. In this instance, the Alex Jones article is covered under special rules (discretionary sanctions on post-1992 politics and living persons) mentioned near the top of Talk:Alex Jones. Many editors participating in controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of these rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank-you - extra link info-banners are fine - I just express as much as possible that I prefer a more flat transparent TCP/IP experience. Text mdnp (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem. You also have the option of opting out of these notices by placing the {{Ds/aware}} template somewhere on this page specifying the topics that you would prefer not to receive notices for. Please see WP:ACDS § Alerts for details. — Newslinger talk 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)\Reply

Right OK. Text mdnp (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Look, Text mdnp, there are two key interconnected problems with your editing. First, there is your abject failure to communicate in a manner which any of your fellow editors are able to comprehend — is there even one, single editor who is able to parse any part of your unrelenting esotericism? I'm not sure that such a person exists. Secondly, there is your singular purpose of promoting WP:FRINGE content. I'm afraid that either of these, not to mention a combination of the two, show that you are not compatible with the project at this time. I'll also note that, in my view, if you were to appeal this block in any way which isn't dramatically more succinct and coherent than the usual, the chances for its success approaches zero.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply