User talk:Nuztas1986

Welcome!

Hello, Nuztas1986, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Kappa rhythmic units, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kappa rhythmic units

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kappa rhythmic units requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Kappa rhythmic units, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kappa rhythmic units

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kappa rhythmic units requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shitenno-jiOsaka.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shitenno-jiOsaka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Black hole, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Black hole, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Greyjoy^talk 05:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 27 Club shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Greyjoy^talk 06:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Black hole. - DVdm (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop promoting yourself

Every single edit you have made has the phrase "mexican polymath Rolando Nuztas". Please stop referring to your own work here. See wp:COI. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and not a soapbox or means of promotion—see wp:FORUM and wp:NOTPROMOTION. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have recently created an alternative account, Don Chuy Sepulveda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's alternative account policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate learning your reasons for creating an additional account. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am documenting someone I follow in music that now is a polymath with a lot of theories an a lot of fields of knowledge, I think i am not breaking the therms down of pubslishing as a music fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Chuy Sepulveda (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Yes, you are. And if you don't stop now, you will be blocked, and all the non-reliabe personal websites (—see wp:RS—) that you use as references, will probably end up on a blacklist. - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, how do you know these accounts are operated by the same person? They don't seem to be denying it, per above, but I'd still like to know where it comes from. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Every edit that was made by Nuztas1986 was "mexican polymath Rolando Nuztas" promotion, with one of his private *.site123.me sources. Immediately after my reversal of his edits (some of which 3RR) and my warnings, the new username Don Chuy Sepulveda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created, re-adding the same content. I don't think that would ever pass the ducktest. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks, DVdm. Nuztas1986, do you really think you're not breaking the terms of editing by creating a sock to continue the same disruptive editing after your original account has been warned and reverted? You're wrong about that. Please take a look at our sockpuppet policy. I have blocked the Don Chuy Sepulveda account indefinitely. Normally, I would also block the primary account, Nuztas1986, for at least a week, for violating our sockpuppet policy. But I'll assume good faith (with some difficulty) that you didn't understand it was wrong, and leave the Nuztas1986 account unblocked. I hope you've read my warning below, though, because it still applies: if you add any further promotion of yourself and/or your theories, you will receive a lengthy block. If you create any more sockpuppets, you will also be blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Final warning

Nuztas1986, if you add any further promotion of your own theories to Black hole, or of yourself to any article, you will be blocked from editing using any account. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your behavior is also being discussed at the edit warring noticeboard. You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuztas1986. - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, self-promotion, and creation of sockpuppets.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]