User talk:TheAlienMan2002

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Good morning/afternoon to the fellow editors.

This is my talk page, feel free to leave a message at my talk page.

Sometimes my archives mess up, so if it happens let me know please.

:It's important to read WP:TPNO before posting stuff on my talk page.

ARCHIVES LIST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheAlienMan2002/Archive_N - November 2021 - August 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheAlienMan2002/Archive_2: September 2023 - Present

October 2023

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Dialmayo can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. The next time you pull similar nonsense, it will be a quick trip to WP:ANI. JBL (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll The user has violated the WP:CIVIL guideline on Wikipedia, saying things as "piss off" to an IP or "fuckin" as a derogatory insult. Please do not put false warnings on my page, it's unvalid. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JBL (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit articles, but if your disruptive editing continues, you'll be further blocked Star Mississippi 02:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi What certain namespaces did I get indeff for? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That question is indicative of your challenges communicating here. Where? or Why? The Where is noted in the block, Wikipedia or project space. The Why? You do not show the communication ability to contribute there. Whether it's an LLM or Translation tool, it's not working. Star Mississippi 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alien was just asking which namespaces they were blocked from. I really just think a namespace block will do, as his mainspace edits are fine. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dialmayo Yes, I was asking which namespaces I was blocked from, because there's a lot of them so I was questioning specifically. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not only have i lost my side of the table, i'm pretty sure it's now on flames. ltbdl (talk) 13:07, 10 October 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).

TheAlienMan2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to be unblocked from editing namespaces from Wikipedia and here is why: Say if I had a question right? I would have to go to either the Teahouse or the Help Desk to ask the question. But, I don't have permission to ask a question on the appropriate page because I am blocked from it. Another alternative for myself would be to pose as an IP, which there's a lot of them, especially for this platform, and ask the question. I would have to identify myself as TheAlienMan2002 and then I would ask the question. I hold the believe that my namespace was an unconstitutional block just because of my writing style. Well some people might say stuff like "Your writing style has totally changed". Well yes, it did change because I had to change the way I wrote stuff otherwise people would get confused and think I used an LLM all the time. I never used an LLM, I swear on my life. If I have to ask a question, as a newbie, I would have to ask as an IP, meaning I would have to log out of my account, search up WP:TEAHOUSE and go on there. I understand the blocks that you've presented to me, but, I would like to be unlocked for WP pages like the Teahouse or the Help Desk. I am still a learner on this platform, and I have learned about talk page etiquette and useful information about other stuff that has been discussed on my talk page archive. The conversation about the LLM's has crowded my talk page and made my talk page absurdly long. So I archived it. WP pages like the Teahouse or the Help Desk are important to newcomers like myself. (Although I joined Wikipedia around 3 years ago, took a long break, then came back around Aug-Sep 2022 around a year later.) I learned that I shouldn't be responding to other peoples messages if you don't have much experience on Wikipedia, articles like the Be Bold section or the Civil article. There's so much rules on Wikipedia that newcomers like us, can't keep up sometimes and we may forget. So, I am asking very nicely, to be unblocked from certain articles like Teahouse or Help Desk, and leave the remaining blocked until I have learned fully about the expectations of Wikipedia. Thank you, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining on two grounds. First, your threat to evade your block by WP:LOUTSOCK. We don't take kindly to threats to violate your block while you make an unblock request. Second, your absolutely ludicrous claim that your block was unconstitutional. Yamla (talk) 13:47, 10 October 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.

TAM2002, if I may offer some unsolicited advice, you may want to rethink your approach on a couple things.

First, when you say Another alternative for myself would be to pose as an IP, what you’re describing is called socking, and is one of the fastest ways to get community banned, not just blocked. I’d recommend striking that immediately. I've seen people lose talk page access for even implying that socking was on their menu of options.

Second, I'd advise you to stop denying you used an LLM, even if you didn't use one before. Here's why: The community has spoken pretty clearly that they think there's some problems with your communication. If you WERE using an LLM, the only thing that has to be done for you to improve is to stop using an LLM. However, if you WEREN'T using an LLM, then there isn't any quick fix to the issues, and so someone would have a pretty decent argument for a WP:CIR block. I'm not saying you have to admit to using an LLM, especially if you didn't, but I am saying that denying you used one is more likely to hurt than help you.

I hope that was useful, or at least not annoying. In any case, I wish you luck with your unblock request. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, i mean logging out of my account and asking the question as an IP, what other way would I have to ask a question on either the Teahouse or the Help Desk. I'm sure you knew what I meant anyway. I don't think it would be socking if I got blocked on a help page. If that wasn't an option, then there won't by any other way of getting in contact with Wikipedians for questions or concerns. Thank you for the luck user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAlienMan2002 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see where I went wrong. I linked to the wrong part of the policy. WP:LOUTSOCK details that logging out of your account to circumvent a ban counts as socking. Sorry for not pointing there originally; that was my bad! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't get fully banned on Wikipedia, it's just a block from namespaces, specifically pages that start with WP:. There could be good reasons as to having an IP to ask questions on help pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, if that wasn't allowed, then really, I wouldn't be learning anything new. Besides what you're telling me. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's up to you, but from what I've seen, any editor either using another account or logging out to avoid a restriction (such as a topic ban or namespace block) is treated as socking. I could be mistaken, but either way I think you've heard what I have to say, so I'll pipe down so I don't start annoying you with my replies. Once more, good luck! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My block has failed, I'll try again next week. Don't want to overload with too many block requests. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm Girth Summit, another administrator. As I said at the ANI thread, I am uncomfortable with you being blocked only from Wikipedia space for a couple of reasons. I can see two possible ways out of that situation. First, you could convince me that you can write in normal, reasonably grammatical English, and agree to do so moving forward, and you also agree to stop posting advice in places like the Teahouse, and I unblock your account. Or, I conclude that you are either trolling, or using unusually bad machine translation to communicate with other editors, and I just block your account completely across the whole site because competence in the English language is required to edit here, and we all move on with our day. Would you like to explore either of those options? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit First option would probably be the best way to go from here. I feel like I've convinced you and others about my grammar, and I've stopped giving out bad advice to Wikipedians on the Teahouse. Not only did I give out bad advice, I suggested to the user, without thinking, that they should go to ANI when really they should've went to another site to resolve the issue.

You really shouldn't assume I'm trolling, because that's a really wild claim right there. What reasons do you think I am trolling? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that you've convinced me about your grammar yet - this last post (the one that I'm now replying to) is the only example of 'normal' writing I've seen from you so far. Some of your recent posts, on this talk page and at ANI, have used some very outlandish vocabulary - the sort of words that only someone with a fairly high level of English comprehension is likely to know. On the other hand, in many of your recent posts here and at ANI, your sentence construction is garbled, sometimes so badly that your meaning is incomprehensible. That's not something I would expect of someone with a high level of English comprehension, it's an unusual combination. The only explanations I can come up with are (a) someone who doesn't actually speak English and is using machine translation (badly), (b) a very bad LLM, or (c) someone who is intentionally writing badly to annoy other people (i.e. trolling). Can you explain what's going on? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's about my vocabulary and my grammar? Okay, using high levels of vocabulary isn't against the rules of Wikipedia and I don't think using grammar is a rule, unless if you can point it out. Why should I have to use grammar if ltbdl can't. The users sentences are wrong, and they're not grammatically correct either.

While I appreciate your attempts at elucidation, I am saying that the interpretations you've posited are inaccurate. No seriously, trolling? Using an LLM? Where would I get an LLM?

Also, my lexicon is extensive, but the onus is not on me should you find it challenging to grasp. I don't consider myself exceptionally erudite. I have astronomically good literary skills, meaning vocabulary skills which I have mentioned, and writing skills. My worst skill is reading.

Can you tell me how my sentences are garbled? Provide a link or something to the garbled sentence because I'm clearly missing something here.

Here, I take exception to your assertions, particularly your insinuation that "someone who doesn't actually speak English" is definitely a baseless and extravagant notion.

I would provide links for my LLM messages, but I do not know how to input that. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your last post demonstrates the point I've been trying to make very nicely. You are using the words from your extensive lexicon incorrectly, and your astronomically high literary skills (I think you meant literacy skills?) seem to be of no use in identifying your own grammatical errors. Using grammar is most definitely a rule. Without it, not stuff sense make does, communication impossible others with becomes (and effective communication is a requirement here). Anyway, this is all moot now, since another administrator has cut to the chsse and blocked your account site-wide. Best wishes. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. i will be sure to improve my grammar, based on your standards. shall i pick up a thesaurus? ltbdl (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried and tried and tried to defend you and i'm tired of getting stuff like this and that and this and that. I really wanted to believe that you could just make good edits. It is so deeply disappointing that you cannot. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be my fault if you cannot understand the conceptualizations of vocabulary usuage. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please write a civil, concise response to someone named "TAM2000" that is diminishing you and your responses by claiming that their vernacular is too refined for you. Please cite Wikipedia policies including WP:PA and WP:ICHY. Please use complex, long words when possible.

Oops, I meant to paste that into ChatGPT. My fault, sorry. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 00:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thealienman2002 is already bad enough, we don't need a thealienman2000. :) ltbdl (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, "conceptualizations of vocabulary usuage (sic)" is not a coherent phrase. We aren't a bunch of illiterate hillbillies who cannot comprehend words longer than seven letters or something. Your initial LLM-like contributions (eg "Failure to appropriately attribute your references constitutes a flagrant violation of the established protocols that govern conduct on Wikipedia.") were LLM-like, and so required disclosure under the relevant policy.

Instead of just owning up to using an LLM and agreeing to disclose it going forward, you switched to just shoving words from your prodigious lexicon into sentences with many basic grammatical and spelling errors (eg "Familiar yourself with other people using vocabulary words that you, do not understand, please. Please be wise on your messages because the more i read them the more I think you're being an egotistical presumptuous human being."). People with immense vocabularies typically don't make grammatical errors every fourth word in a sentence while dropping 5$ words like they're gambling in Vegas.

Just take the L and admit that you were using an LLM initially; it's not like your normal writing is bad, the manner in which you've written the unblock request above is perfectly fine and understandable. If you keep accusing people of being too stupid to read your sentences and keep writing these ridiculous vocabulary tests instead, you're probably going to become the first person to be banned for sheer annoyingness. AryKun (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun Hey "Dude", "conceptualizations of vocabulary usage" is a coherent phrase, maybe get educated a little bit more with the conversation before going at me.

The point I'd like to emphasize is that I have never engaged in using any LLM utilities with the intent of amplifying the range of vocabulary in my expressions. Some individuals on this talk page appear to harbor doubts about my veracity, which I find disconcerting. It's inappropriate, particularly within the context of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not impose strict grammatical standards, and I believe your response does not align with the core essence of my initial communication.

Your message, " People with immense vocabularies typically don't make grammatical errors every fourth word in a sentence while dropping 5$ words like they're gambling in Vegas." is irrelevant, also thanks for the WP:HUMOR. Here's the thing, that message is a little bit of an exaggeration. People who possess a vast vocabulary usually spent a significant amount of time reading, writing, and engaging with language. However, having a broad vocabulary doesn't automatically guarantee flawless grammar, and vice versa. They are related but distinct components of language mastery.

Everyone, regardless of their linguistic proficiency, can make mistakes from time to time. Factors such as fatigue, multitasking, or even just typing so quickly can lead to errors in typing.

It's not a guarantee that everyone can have an insane grammar expertise, and occasional mistakes are normal for everyone, including yourself. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 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).

TheAlienMan2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel like it's been a while since I've edited this project. I'd like to take full responsibility for using LLM's and even pushing it so far as to create accounts to just vandalize Wikipedia. This isn't me as a person. This is a whole different person when it comes to making disruptive editing on Wikipedia. I know as an editor since 2021 that editing Wikipedia has a tedious amount of rules that people need to follow, but sometimes people can just forget and need to be reminded of those rules so that they don't make the same mistakes. But unfortunately for myself, I (may) have gotten angry to just create accounts and use them to vandalize. I know now that it was wrong, and I have come back to this website to be forgiven and let the past step aside from eternity. So I'm asking someone, whoever is reviewing this, to consider my block appeal. Thank you. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no hope of you being unblocked as long as you continue to evade the block. You'll need to go six months without evasion to show us that you can abide by guidelines and instructions before we can even consider removing the block. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (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.

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).

TheAlienMan2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've demonstrated that I can handle editing Wikipeida without any issues. I feel like I am a trusted Wikipedian here because I make helpful edits on this website. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per @Yamla:'s findings, whose removal does not at all help you make your case. Star Mississippi 01:52, 17 June 2024 (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.