March 2024
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix/Tensor Algorithms, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kinu t/c 18:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that article was deleted and is no longer relevant. Please, send your comments to the new topic as you already did. Thank you for understanding. Fritzudo (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Fritzudo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Matrix and tensor objects for numerical simulations, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 22:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi Fritzudo, welcome to (the English language) Wikipedia. I'm putting a standard greeting message below this, but before that I wanted to make a more individualized comment. It seems like you have run into some friction quickly here: I watch the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics, so I am aware of you just because I have seen two of your articles be proposed for deletion. One thing that is evident from those discussions is that you aren't succeeding in convincing anyone else to agree with you. I suspect this is (in part) because you are new to editing Wikipedia and you haven't fully gotten used to the various social norms and policies here, which are different than most other academic communities (online and in-person). One thing that is noticeable to me right away from looking at your article Matrix and tensor objects for numerical simulations is that it doesn't seem very much like other Wikipedia articles on mathematics. Do you agree? If so, perhaps we could discuss that further. --JBL (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Using one's own book as a reference, as at Levi-Civita symbol, is also inappropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Fritzudo,
- I see that you have attempted to contact me on several other Wikimedia projects (de, meta, commons). A week ago, I was interested in helping mediate the discussions that were taking place, with the aim of defusing the situation and helping you come to appreciate the feedback you were getting. Unfortunately, as a result of your behavior since then, it is no longer possible for you to communicate directly here, and I have no interest in holding any Wikipedia-related discussions outside of the English-language Wikipedia. My advice to you would be that, if you wish to contribute to the en.wikipedia, you should spend time trying to understand (rather than disprove or rebut) the many comments that you have received here, and some of the links from my welcome message below -- in order for you to be allowed back, it would certainly be necessary for you to develop a better understanding of what is acceptable behavior towards other users here, and what kind of content is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you aren't interested in doing that, you probably should find a different venue in which to present your work.
- Best of luck to you,
- JBL (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Fritzudo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- How to avoid a conflict of interest
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JBL (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kinu t/c 01:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)- Regardless of the credentials you may have, Wikipedia does not benefit from this kind of behavior. Referring to other editors as prejudiced and incompetent is absolutely inappropriate. --Kinu t/c 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Fritzudo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Request by User "Fritzudo": The administrator "Kinu" blocking my article is wrong: there happened no personal attacks nor any harassment by myself, as everybody may notice from the discussion! Therefore, the blocking of my account and of my submitted respectively published articles is illegal and discriminating my reputation as a recognized scientist and violating the policies of WP about open discussions and freedom of opinion! In addition, I was discriminated by "Enby" making flat jokes about me as a newcomer and foreigner, when I asked for a supervision by the WP management: "... kind of supervision...?: x-ray, telescoping, laser eyes ..." That's unacceptable! Therefore, I demand for an immediate reopening of my user account and the disclosure of my articles !
Decline reason:
This was a blatant violation of WP:NPA. Claiming that it is illegal to block your account is absolutely ludicrous and hurts your chances of ever being unblocked. Yamla (talk) 13:18, 19 March 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.
Fritzudo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did NOT prejudice or declare anybody as incompetent, as can be learned from the protocol of the discussion! If someone like "Chaotic" declares, that a reviewer of articles doesn't need to be an expert in linear algebra to establish a proper review about a quite complex scientific problem of Numerical Mathematics, Science, Informatics and Engineering with the necessary professional competence, then YOU have a great problem as administrator to solve.
- Because each reviewer should have some knowledge about his own abilities and declare himself as not responsible when sufficient professional experience is missing. A lack of understanding the subject is not tolerable at all. That are the rules within the international scientific community, which is your obligation to control and supervise as administrator. It is not your obligation to protect Chaotic in his wrong understanding about the reviewing process and to blame me as the victim of misjudgment by an indefinite blocking of my user account! That is not only unfair, but mainly violating the interests of Wikipedia as an open and qualified platform.
- I hope that you have the self-awareness and courage to correct a wrong decisions.
Decline reason:
Good block, and I see nothing here to suggest anything will change. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 19 March 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.
- You say "I did NOT prejudice or declare anybody as incompetent", but this statement, coupled with your repeated harassment of others asking them to declare their credentials (effectively asking them to self-violate WP:OUTING), clearly shows otherwise, so lying will not do you any favors. As far as what you perceive to be the role of expert reviewers, those may be "the rules within the international scientific community", but that is irrelevant, because they are not the rules here. I refer you to WP:EXPERT:
it doesn't matter who you are or who you say you are — what matters is the quality of the sources you bring and of your edits summarizing those sources, and how well you work with others
. Meanwhile, you are continuing the behavior that led to your block, referring to an established editor as having a "wrong understanding about the reviewing process", while you yourself, who has only used this as a vehicle to post your own work, are the one demonstrating that you do not understand the policies and guidelines here, which have been pointed out to you numerous times both here and at the relevant deletion discussions. I believe this block is appropriate due to your comments being grossly incivil and violating the policy stated at WP:NPA (a stance with which Yamla has agreed in the decline of your unblock request above), and I believe it necessary to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Indeed, I do have the "self-awareness and courage" to stand by my block. --Kinu t/c 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) - Also, regarding your notion of this block "violating the interests of Wikipedia as an open and qualified platform": see WP:FREESPEECH. --18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Fritzudo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Some one has deleted my article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_symbol#Tensor_Calculus[7]. Now, I need the source text for personal purposes, but I cannot find it. Kinu, did you also delete or block it in contex with my user page? Please, deliver the source to me from some archieve. Many thanks in advance! Fritzudo
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. Please read WP:GAB before using the unblock template again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:43, 20 March 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.
- Here's the archived version if you want it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Chaotic Enby, thank you very much for your effort! Fritzudo
Fritzudo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As the discussion of deletion has finished and my article was deleted, I now apply for unblocking of my user page. I have no problem to accept the rules of WP, but they are rather complex and hardly to overview for non-experts. Therefore I need advices and more help rather than reprehensions from administrators. I am still much interested in the co-opoeration with other Wikipedians!
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as talk page access revoked, so there's no point in leaving this open. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 24 March 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.
- If you can't handle receiving "reprehensions" from administrators, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the project for you. A number of editors have attempted to patiently explained why your contributions were reverted, to which you responded with belligerence and unfounded accusations. To be unblocked, you'll need to convince the next reviewing administrator that you understand our WP:COI policy, that will make no further attempts to promote your own work, and that you are willing to accept feedback and heed warnings from experienced users. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did NOT promote my own work! My reference book published by Springer is a scientific compendium about object-oriented methods and includes the relevant references to the subjects of the article. Your allegation of belligerence is an outrageous insult of my personalty!
- Because it never happened during the discussion. Temper your prejudices and return to a fair analysis of the injustice of that accidental deletion process.
- There happened NO personal attacks and harassment by my person. Therefor I apply again to reopen my user account now. Fritzudo (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion was not "accidental". It was the proper and rather inevitable result of the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as has been noted to you multiple times by multiple editors. If you are unwilling to accept that, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the project for you. To be frank, while you undoubtedly have knowledge in your field of expertise that would potentially be beneficial here, any unblock would likely come with the stipulation that you not use any of your own work as citations. You will also have to accept that you do not own articles or sections therein (viz. your comments about your edits to Levi-Civita symbol), and that any edit is subject to scrutiny and further editing—or potentially removal entirely. --Kinu t/c 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Misuse of deletion tags is not a sound unblock strategy, nor is describing experienced users as "incompetent." Note the very first sentence in the U1 Criteria: Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion declined. NotAGenious (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There happened NO personal attacks and harassment by my person
... proceeds to make personal attacks. This is becoming a time sink. --Kinu t/c 17:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)- Bla, bla, bla .... Fritzudo (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have just read your statement above "Your allegation of belligerence is an outrageous insult of my personalty!" The sad thing is that I think that was probably not meant as a joke. I wonder what you think "belligerence" means, since you don't seem to realise that that sentence is an excellent illustration of precisely what it means. JBW (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
UTRS
UTRS appeal #87241 has been declined. It had no merit whatsoever, and just repeated more of the arrogant bluster and contemptuous dismissal of lesser mortals who are so misguided or malicious as to disagree with you, that we have seen before. JBW (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
UTRS appeal #90318 has been declined. It was not an appeal for an unblock, but a request to have the past accounts deleted; it was posted while a new sockpuppet was active. It is difficult to avoid the impression that it was an attempt to hide your past history, to avoid scrutiny of the latest sockpuppet. JBW (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)