User talk:Tomruen: Difference between revisions

Tomruen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Octagonal trapezohedron for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Octagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Heptagonal trapezohedron for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1234qwer 1234qwer 4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prism tilings

Template:Prism tilings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do 1001-gon?

. Otimaomo24 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of polygon articles being deleted or redirected. But if you have source articles that explain its significance. I see 1001 is 13x11x7. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not classically constructible, if that's the question. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Tomruen reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: ). Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knock off the personal attacks

Comments like these [1][2][3][4] are not acceptable, especially when dealing with a contentious topic. Focus on the content, not the contributor. You've certainly been here long enough to know how to edit civilly, so please do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you see crap articles and the person defending them, it is hard. Ideologues are real people, and they have agendas. Denying that is hopeless. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing personal attacks is not the way to proceed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job deleting hist versions of the article showing possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Women's Declaration International) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now others can see the horrible article as undefendably bad. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can civilly discuss your objections and issues on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job deleting my edit revisions.[5] We wouldn't want people to be able to look at possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions that contain copyright violations are routinely deleted. In fact, that is the first listed acceptable use of revision deletion. See WP:RD1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I added that could possibly be a problem was a list of Declaration items. I reduced to a single sentence to try to make it acceptable. Actually linking to the source is useful, unless you're an ideologue onyl writing content to demonize it. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning on civility. Maybe take a break for a while, or have a cup of tea. You've been here for a very long time with a clean block log, and I don't want to sully it more than I already have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I DID NOT intentionally try to restore anything not allowed. I directly tried to understand what the claim was and I correct it, while in the process of larger good edits being repeatedly reverted.

Decline reason:

You're blocked only from one article, for three days. Use the talk page to work out issue, but really. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I saw the reason for blocking as unjust, so I spoke up as any self-respecting person would do. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use an article talk page for general discussion, as you did at Talk:Martine Rothblatt. You have been on Wikipedia since 2004, which is before some of our other editors were born. You know how things work around here perfectly well. Your trolling was entirely deliberate. You have been blocked for similar behaviour before. I see no reason to make this anything less than a final warning. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Trolling truth is still trolling. Truth is not allowed for special people who have special protections against factual reality. The emperor may have no clothes, but no one but children are allowed to say so, and they will be properly punished. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account by behaving like this? I hope not. That would be truly sad. You don't have to do this. Please, just drop the WP:STICK. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I free to editorialize on my own talk page? I see you are allowed your gender-cult biases against reality. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanielRigal#The_things_that_I_can't_stand To the people who deliberately misgender or deadname people in articles or on Talk We have all heard your spurious ideological justifications but nobody is fooled. You just want to hurt and humiliate other people who you perceive as vulnerable and within shouting distance. Ironically, you only diminish yourself when you do this. Besides, why do you even care enough about what gender somebody else is to be a dick about it? What is wrong with you? Note: When I revert deliberate misgendering I often issue warnings for "inserting deliberate factual errors". I don't do this for amusement. I do it because it is the correct warning for somebody deliberately making an article less correct in order to try to spread misinformation.

Are you OK? You used to edit constructively but now you are making personal attacks and getting into trouble over complete nonsense in a way that you never did before. Back when you tried to get Women's Declaration International spuriously deleted I was moved to speculate on the AfD that maybe your account had been compromised. I now doubt that is the case as you are still editing your mathematical essays but clearly something has changed radically, and very much not for the better. Please ask yourself honestly, are you OK? A lot of people are not. Please seek help from appropriate sources if you need to. Your behaviour isn't helping anybody, least of all yourself. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've stayed the same. (Articles that can't be corrected for bias because cult editors have control are best deleted.) The cult thinking on Wikipedia and elsewhere in society is what changed. Of course there will be pushback when cult-beliefs take over institutions. And it is all dangerous, and the clarity for a NEED of pushback only increases every time we see censorship of facts is the rule. Groupthink is always bad, but worse when a group has social power to enforce it. Society won't survive these lies. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear who is engaging in cult like thinking here but I'm fully aware that there is absolutely no way for me to persuade you of that if you are not willing to consider the possibility. If you will just lay off the personal attacks and disruptive editing then we can just leave it here. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia after final warning then you know what will happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reality must be a cult then, recognizing biological reality matters and defending sex-base boundaries. But the troubled cult can only exist in people who deny reality and use their power to silence others who are not in the cult. It'll reverse eventually, but I'm happy how much will be destroyed because the left can't police its own cults. We can check back our mutual assessment in 2030. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen#top|talk]]) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen#top|talk]]) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen#top|talk]]) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.

You have been sanctioned because it is clear from your recent edit warring, personal attacks, and overall tone that you cannot edit neutrally and dispassionately about this subject.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 {{unblock|I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen#top|talk]]) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)}}
+==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
+{{Ivmbox
+|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
+|imagesize=50px
+|1=The following sanction now applies to you:
+{{Talkquote|1=You are indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.}}
+You have been sanctioned because it is clear from your recent edit warring, personal attacks, and overall tone that you cannot edit neutrally and dispassionately about this subject.
+This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics procedure]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2023|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
+You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.&nbsp;Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.-->&nbsp;[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
+}}