User talk:Orexin

Hi Orexin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at 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.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orexin (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Okay, but you do realize that that is not a blog. It is the leading Charity in the UK with links the to the industry even on some of their advisory board so although the reference formatting was incorrect. It is a high quality source that should not be considered a "blog level citation" this is where Narcoleptics in the UK go to get help with benefits and advice and assistance with that thereof. There fore I think you undoing the edit was incorrect. All you needed to do was correct the references as if you visited the pages it has a plethora of secondary references, than has centralized all that information on one page. This is an organization with paid people. I cannot understate The magnitude of this error.[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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 92.40.212.51. Place any further information here. I don't care what spur USA says it's my default internet connection I'm on 5G broadband stop blocking itOrexin (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed P2P proxy. Yamla (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2022 (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.

Please don't remove the note around sourcing: it's there for a reason (in that we need reliable, independent sources). The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source. — Czello ^(music) 12:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude stop reverting and engaging in topic you have no idea, what you're talking about. You're not reliable source. There's barely any sourcing for the workers party of Britain so stop being annoying and reverting the edit. Orexin (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more reliable then wait for it, YOU, which YOU over daily mail I'll choose the daily mail any day. Daily mail is leading UK newspapers as well, so you're WRONG again what are you talking about do you even read the article as well. Orexin (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calm yourself down, see WP:CIVIL. There's no need to get worked up.

And no, we don't use the Daily Mail at all, see WP:DAILYMAIL. Until you can provide a reliable source it stays blank. — Czello ^(music) 07:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable."; "The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." "Despite this, the source may be used for *uncontroversial self-descriptions* (like the ideology of workers party), although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. " A) There is no other reliable sources other than the worker party of Britain website itself B) The daily mail which I've read is just the guy reading twitter and and the website and it even has a video on it. There is no ban on the daily mail and given the fact that there is C) barely any sources I would say it's a good source, I've read the worker party of Britain website itself and other than the anti-socialist hysteretic. The daily mail is good. Therefore given that restriction not a ban, and it is allowed in the ABSENCE of other source I would advise it be kept on provisional basis, if you like to add a note saying "although there is not a ban on daily mail, there is scant third party documentation on the workers party of britain other than the website itself". Like dude it's in the name sources is aside what the hell do you think most parties with workers in mae are for like come on now. I believe that the sources provided are in line with wiki guidance. I hope you'll agree with that it can be used on provisional basis "uncontroversial self-descriptions" quoting the Wikipedia and that notes be made saying as much rather than none at all. Do you agree with following or not. Orexin (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't use WPB's own description. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and we require independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 11:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's missing the point do you agree that following guidelines of Wikipedia under the section of *uncontroversial self-descriptions* that in this case for something like ideology that daily mail is appropriate and that following guidelines as I've quoted above in this case as third party source. And that is this case again following the guidelines above a provisional usage of it may be allowed. Orexin (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontroversial self description would be an attributed statement, like we have later in the article. The infobox should use more objective and independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 21:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Joseph Stalin, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 10:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh could u point out where wasnt constructive please and once u have done that because there is no way u read it u can get back to me otherwise. Do not revert edits unless u can specify what was wrong with them Orexin (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Joseph Stalin. Remsense ‥ 论 10:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude i improved the neutrality there was no personal analysis in there and if u continue this i will report your account as you clearly not a human Orexin (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice you've accused Remsense of being a bot - don't do that, WP:AGF. They rightly reverted your edit as you whitewashed Stalin by removing criticisms of his rule in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 10:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That by default is non neutral criticism is not neutral write a book if u want criticism Orexin (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain why it is not neutral you can do so at Talk:Joseph Stalin, and should achieve consensus before deleting it. However I can tell you that you'll have a hard time as the criticism that is in the lead is reflect of historical fact. — Czello ^(music) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joseph Stalin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted the whole article. Respecfully, please do not edit until you're able to be more constructive. — Czello ^(music) 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Orexin reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, United Australia Party (1931). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – United Australia Party. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at United Australia Party. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Joseph Stalin. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for flooding Wikipedia with AI-generated article content.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]