User talk:Transcedent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election, links pointing to the disambiguation pages were Paul James and Antonio Ortiz. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Information icon Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.  Sumanuil. (talk to me) 09:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Formal concern regarding NPOV and WP:PRESERVE on Peruvian polling data Transcedent (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

WTH does that even mean? And what do those policies have to do with cleaning up the mess you made? Sumanuil. (talk to me) 19:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Formal concern regarding NPOV and WP:PRESERVE on Peruvian polling data

Transcedent (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election.

Please stop your disruptive edits. You have been reverted multiple times by many different editors, and your repeated efforts to continue are not helpful. Cilidus (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Transcedent reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: ). Thank you.  Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Information icon Hello, I'm FantasticWikiUser. An edit that you recently made to Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian People's Party was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election) for continued edit warring against multiple other editors at Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

So, You've Been Blocked

Hello, I have noticed you around before, and I just wanted to tell you that your best scenario here is to drop the stick, walk away, and find something else productive to do. I'm sure there's plently of other Peruvian articles out there needing improvement or creation. Also, please stop using LLMs to generate anything. We want to hear you, not ChatGPT or Claude or Gemeni or CoPilot or WiKiPeDiALLMAITALK. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Rough start

Hey Transcedent, I see that you've kinda had a rough start with your editing. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of the conflict you had was with a known sockpuppet user, or a user who uses multiple accounts in a suspicious way. Although this doesn't excuse any other misunderstandings you may have had, it may be some reassurance for you.

Beginning on Wikipedia can be exciting when you're passionate about something, but it's also important to gain experience on other articles and not get too focused on a single topic. I encourage you to see how else you can contribute on Peruvian topics and you can take a look at WikiProject Peru to see some articles that need improvement or to talk over things with other users interested in the topic.

Personally, I have had my own rough experiences on here, but the guidance of others and branching out into new topics helped me improve the quality of my edits and how I interact with others on the project. Please don't be discouraged and talk to me if you have any questions. WMrapids (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Appeal regarding partial block / Polling Section of the 2026 Peruvian General Elections

cross icon
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).

Transcedent (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log) • SI)


Request reason:

I am posting this to appeal the partial block on my account concerning the "Opinion Polling" section of the 2026 Peruvian General Election article. My recent edits were not intended to be disruptive; rather, they were a deliberate effort to correct a significant statistical distortion and ensure the article provides a neutral, comprehensive view of the current electoral landscape. 1. Statistical Integrity: Total vs. Valid Votes The current "adjusted" tables (particularly in the Spanish-language version) focus exclusively on valid votes, systematically excluding the null, blank, and undecided responses, which currently average 50% of the electorate. This creates a misleading narrative. For example, by focusing only on valid votes, candidates like Keiko Fujimori and Rafael López Aliaga appear to hold a combined ~40% of the vote. However, recent March 2026 data from IEP, Datum, and Ipsos show they actually average between 10% and 12.5% each when the full electorate is considered. By omitting the 50% of respondents who are undecided or voting blank, the article presents a "settled" race that does not exist. Including full percentage points is not clutter—it is a requirement for a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). 2. Historical Precedent and the "Outsider" Factor Since 1990, Peruvian elections have been defined by extreme polarization and late-stage shifts. Historically: The left-leaning electorate and undecided blocks often consolidate behind an "outsider" candidate only in the final weeks of the campaign. In the 2021 election, the eventual winner, Pedro Castillo (Peru Libre), was polling below 3% at this exact stage in the cycle. Excluding prospective candidates like Vladimir Cerrón or other representatives of the Left while the field remains this fragmented is a form of editorial gatekeeping. It ignores the political reality that these "minor" candidates often define the second-round runoff. 3. Addressing the "Disruptive" Label My attempt to list the full field of 36 registered candidates was intended to reflect the record-breaking fragmentation of this cycle. Removing these candidates gives the false impression that they have no mathematical path to the second round. This contradicts historical patterns where establishment favorites are frequently overtaken by candidates currently being excluded from the table. Conclusion I request that the administration reconsider my partial block. I propose a polling table format that includes: Full participation data (including Null, Blank, and Undecided categories). Inclusion of all registered party candidates, ensuring that the table does not reflect a pro-establishment bias. Recognition of the "Anti-establishment" block, which historically draws from the currently high "undecided"Transcedent (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We do not consider LLM-generated unblock requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:20, 18 March 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI