User talk:UniversalHumanTranscendence

July 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Set have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Set was changed by UniversalHumanTransendence (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.922596 on 2021-07-30T01:52:48+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Root (disambiguation). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. ----Rdp060707|talk 06:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

Hi - you're changing a lot of articles to make the subject of the article act as the first word of the first sentence. That isn't a requirement - it's often done, but it's not necessary, and sometimes reads awkwardly. Please don't do that. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 06:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is awkward to start the article with the word in, which is ambiguous. What’s your definition of in, in this case of the S-Matrix? Where possible we should try to start the article with the word we are trying to describe or define. It’s a standard convention. Why do you prefer starting all these articles with the word in? UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

UniversalHumanTransendence, MOS:FIRST discusses this. It advises that the subject of the article be the subject of the first sentence, but it doesn't require it to be the first word. Those sentences read better before your changes; you actually rendered some of them ungrammatical. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Also please take a look at WP:EW. If your edit is reverted, that means your change is contested. The onus is then on you to get consensus for it. Propose the change on the talk page and discuss with other users, don't just reinstate it. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Without a basic understanding of the S-matrix, you may not properly understand the grammar of the word in, in this case. It would be easier for one to start with the article physics, however that is not a good reason to place physics before the S-matrix. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The article you reference states:

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence: UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is possible and grammatically correct to place S-matrix before in physics UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Give me an example of the edit I made rendering the article grammatically incorrect. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

UniversalHumanTransendence, the sentence, prior to your changes, used an article before 'S-matrix' ('the S-matrix'). I assume that is standard usage, and would still be required if S-matrix was placed before the prepositional phrase - that's what made it ungrammatical.

You did the same thing at Root. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not going to just keep re-editing while you’re reverting but what you’re saying makes no sense. You’re trying to say that standard usage is to not place the article's title as early as possible in the first sentence.

If this is not what you mean what do you assume is standard usage? To place other articles ahead of the bolder article title? If you don’t respond to this I will rêver to S-matrix first. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because I’m fixing multiple articles does not mean that it is incorrect. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

By 'article', I'm referring the the word 'the' (the definite article). It needs to precede 'S-matrix'.

With regards to the other stuff, it's not ungrammatical to place a prepositional phrase after the subject of the sentence, but I don't see it as an improvement. Many, many articles start with 'In such and such', if you're going to go around changing all of them you should start a discussion at the MOS talk page first. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have started an article on the MOS talk page. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s an improvement for AI spiders on the web UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And it is also an improvement according to wiki standards in the article you referenced of placing the title as early as possible in the article UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to revert the s-matrix article. Please do not undo it. I want to see if someone other than you has a problem with it and can join the conversation. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why have you removed the word 'the'? It's ungrammatical without it. We don't write articles to comply with what benefits AI spiders.

Please look at WP:BRD. You want to make the change - I have contested it - the onus is now on you to gain consensus for the change, not on me. The status quo ante should be retained until you gain consensus. Please therefore self-revert. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is removed because it is redundant and confusing UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see another example of an advanced opener:

Ra (/rɑː/;^[1] Ancient Egyptian: rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw /ˈɾiːʕuw/; cuneiform: 𒊑𒀀 ri-a or 𒊑𒅀ri-ia)^[2] or Re (/reɪ/; Coptic: ⲣⲏ, Rē)

Let’s see if someone other than you reverts my change to the BRD article by removing the redundant ‘The’ and joins the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

[1]
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. Merriam-Webster, 2007. p. 1023
[2]
Hess, Richard S. (1993). Amarna Personal Names. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 9780931464713. Archived from the original on 2017-12-16.

Let’s see if someone else responds to my removal of ‘The’ from the BRD article and joins the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Is English your first language? 'Ra' is a name - they generally don't take articles (you wouldn't refer to me as 'The Girth Summit'). Mass nouns and plurals can sometimes also be used sometimes without articles: "butter is tasty" or "I like bananas". Regular nouns, when used in the singular, take an article: "The cat sat on the mat." "A bicycle may be faster than a car if the streets are congested". (That last one has an example of a plural noun taking an article - that's sometimes necessary, it depends).

'The' is not redundant in those instances where you have changed it. You should probably also read WP:POINT. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ra is a diety

A Ra vs Ra UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You could also start the article:

A Ra, in dieties, is… UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No you couldn't. 'Ra', the word, is a name used to refer to a deity. It doesn't take an article when used to refer to the deity, as in the example you give above. It might take an article if there were multiple deities with that name, or different representations of the deity (e.g. 'The Ra of ancient Egyptian mythology is very different from the Ra depicted in comic books'). Girth Summit _(blether) 09:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits let someone else either revert and join the conversation or leave my edits UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop making the edits until you gain consensus to do so. That's the point of the BRD cycle - you make an edit, someone contests it, and then you stop until discussion is concluded. You seem to think that it is the person who is contesting it who needs to form a consensus against your change - that is not the case. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re the problem. You’re the only one reverting. Let someone else read it and join the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not a 'problem', that's how this environment works. If you make a change, it only takes one person to disagree and revert it - at that point, you stop, and you don't reinstate it until you have consensus. Besides, I see that someone else has now reverted you at Set (mathematics), so I'm not the only one who thinks these changes are ungrammatical.

I feel I should warn you that I'm very close to losing my patience with these edits, which I view as disruptive. I'm not going to block your account myself, since I've been the one reverting and discussing this with you, but if you reinstate any of those changes without gaining consensus, I will raise a thread at an appropriate noticeboard and ask another admin to step in. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit (talk · contribs) has been very patient. You joined Wikipedia yesterday and have managed to make edits on several different pages which have been (correctly) reverted. You should slow down a bit and work harder at editing collaboratively or, as GS says, end up being blocked as a disruptive editor. --Macrakis (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You should be commenting on the MOS lead section talk page where there is a discussion about this, where I am addressing the subject. Please comment there if you want In physics to come before S-Matrix. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, it has improved my editing! UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

UniversalHumanTransendence, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Speedy deletion nomination of Physceptual systems

December 2021

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content / original research.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:

I would argue that the edits I have recently made amount to verifiable statements:

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Please see: User:UniversalHumanTranscendence/Physceptual_systems

Hi UniversalHumanTranscendence,

This is not purely about your most recent contributions, but your most recent contributions caused someone to annoyedly file a report at WP:AIV. Looking through your contributions, I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose, using it as a webhost/forum for the publication of original research and neologisms. I was also not surprised, looking at the messages above and your user page, that considering oneself to be the "root of the universe" turned out to be incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment.

If the "Milky Way" edits ( and ) have been made in good faith (I assume that's the case!), there's not much to argue here: You have joined Wikipedia with a perception of being "the root of the universe", this perception has not changed, yet it turned out to be disruptive multiple times.

It's fine if you think the universe revolves around you, but this thought currently seems to come with a lack of compatibility with this community. There's an option, though: You could unblock yourself using your transcendental powers.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: You are, as an individual (and as a representative of this community and organization), causing a retardation of planetary technological, mathematical, languagetical (languatical?), etc... comprehension and progress. I made those Milky Way edits once and when someone reverted them I did not put them back up. The edits I make are verifiable and therefore do not contradict wikipedia's policies. If people on this planet are not welcome to develop logical language and/or share verifiable stuff on this website and/or with this community I guess it is time to ditch Wikipedia and get a new website going where people are actually free to share. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments. At least read the intro paragraph to technological singularity and think, also act in a responsible way as an individual ‘freely’ decisioning. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Request August 2024

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reasons for my block (unsourced content and original research). I will avoid making these kinds of edits in the future and will use the talk pages more before making edits to ensure that the edits I make are acceptable and have been reviewed and discussed. I have learned from my mistakes and want to contribute to articles in a more productive way consistent with Wiki rules and guidelines. I also want to make changes to my user page as the description is inappropriate. I have had lots of time to reflect on this block and I will strive to make contributions in the most constructive way possible going forward. I will experiment with the sandbox more before making edits. I will also read more tutorials to help me make better edits. Thank you for considering removing this block. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

AI generated appeals do not get consideration. Appeal in your own words. Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2024 (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.

@Cabayi: Thank you for the prompt response. However, I did write the unblock request in my own words; it was not AI generated. Thanks for the compliment for thinking it was AI generated. I individually composed the unblock request this afternoon. First, I checked that the block was still active and reiterated the reason that the block was made. After reading the guide to appealing blocks, I described why the block is no longer necessary and that I will be constructive in the future, which is true and is why I believe the block should be removed. This was described as a valid reason to request a block removal in the guide to appealing blocks. I then added that I want to modify my user page and reflected on other ways that I can improve my work as a Wikipedia editor overall. I said I would use the sandbox more because that was suggested by a previous admin and it is a tool I would like to become more familiar with and use in the future. I also stated I would use the talk pages more because that helps prevent reverts as was often happening when editing the Colour article. I also said I would read more tutorials because that seems like a good way to improve my editing as a whole. I’m not sure what else to tell you except I am human, I wrote the initial request myself - it was not AI generated, and neither is this response comment. Please consider removing my block. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your appeal had three of the characteristics often seen in AI generated appeals. Another admin will review your next appeal. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request 2 August 17th, 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

My first request was declined as the administrator who reviewed it assumed that it was AI generated - though it was not. Therefore this request will be less brief and to the point because I feel that I now need to justify both my request and describe why my request is not AI generated.

I understand the reasons for my block (unsourced content and original research). I am reiterating this because I reviewed that my block is still active, why I am blocked, and will work on using as many sources and references as possible moving forward with my edits. I will avoid making unsourced and/or original research edits in the future.

Furthermore, I will use the talk pages more often before making edits to ensure that the edits I make are acceptable and have been reviewed and discussed. I have had discussions with other editors and admins in the past about not making contentious edits directly on the page to start off because using the talk page first helps prevent unnecessary reverts to the main page.

Additionally, I will experiment with the sandbox more before making edits. The use of the sandbox was recommended by an administrator to me on my talk page in December 2021, and I intend to take advantage of this tool in the future. I will also read more tutorials to help me make better edits in general. Using/reading tutorials and templates seems to be a straight forward way to improve the quality of my contributions.

After years of reflection, I have learned from my mistakes and want to contribute to articles in a more productive way consistent with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I will also strive to be more polite and constructive in disagreements with other editors and/or admins.

I also want to make changes to my user page as I feel that the description I previously wrote there is inappropriate. I have had lots of time to reflect on this block and I will strive to make contributions in the most constructive way possible going forward.

Thank you for considering removing this block. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK, I am willing to unblock you to give you another chance. As I indicated below, I think your latest statements are very different in character than what you wrote before, and I see every reason to hope that you can now start contributing without the problems which led to the block. However, I think it may be worth offering you a word of caution. Your latest comments don't go as far as I would have liked in the direction of showing a recognition of what the past problems were, and while I think it very likely that you do actually fully understand and just haven't gone into every detail, it does raise an element of doubt. Please bear that in mind, and be careful how you edit. I also advise you to think about the comments below from ToBeFree. I agree with everything he has said, and his comments may be helpful to you. (Incidentally, although it is a matter of no geat importance, one of the things about which I agree with ToBeFree is that I don't believe your previous unblock request was AI generated.) JBW (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You have described how you intend to employ a better editing process, which sounds fine. However, it will help if you can also give some specific examples of editing that you will do if unblocked. JBW (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. I have a university degree in science BSc physiology and physics, and a medical doctorate. I would help provide more evidence based and sourced content to medical and other scientific articles for the most part. I would also try to improve on other articles for which I have significant knowledge and can improve the article. Before doing so I would discuss my contributions on the talk pages unless they are minor edits or additions of referenced/sourced material.

I would also fix general errata in articles that I read. In addition I may recommend improvements if there are ways I think some articles could be presented better, more concisely, more understandably, etc… (these would be talk page recommendations) UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: What do you think? This is very different from the stuff this editor was writing a couple of years ago. Do you think it's enough to make it worth trying an unblock to see what happens? JBW (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally open to this, but there seem to have been quite many probably rather unnecessary article talk page messages before the block, and being bold is normally fine. Trying to discuss everything beforehand wouldn't lead to a better situation than the one that was stopped by the block, I think. On the other hand, there was articlespace nonsense like and , which probably led to an WP:AIV report back then. At least that's how I usually notice such edits.

I don't think any of the appeals was written by an AI, but the highly formal writing style can quickly tire other editors in discussions.

JBW, I think you can unblock, there won't be further vandalism, there won't be incivility, there may be sealioning, and there may be so much of it that it eventually leads to a ban discussion at WP:ANI, but I can't reliably predict the future and we should perhaps just see what actually happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thank you both for reviewing my previous ban, my request for unblock, and offering constructive advice on how to become a better wiki editor going forward. I will try to ensure civility and avoid sealioning. It is easier, now, to say that everything will go smoothly than to catch myself in the heat of a debate when things aren’t ideal. Nevertheless, I will strive to keep this previous ban in mind and work to constantly improve. Please feel free to suggest other articles such as sealioning for me to review.

@JBW: I would like to further recognize that some of the past issues, such as the nonsense edits ToBeFree was referring to, were a result of a mental health crisis. I fully understand why such edits resulted in a ban and appreciate being allowed another chance to contribute constructively to this great encyclopedia/website. I anlso understand some of the disagreements I had with other admins and editors led to unnecessary argumentation - they should have been more civil, less confrontational, and more objective. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and welcome back.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)