User talk:Simpul skitsofreeneea

October 2023

Thank you for changing Wikipedia. We welcome all changes, but we can have only changes that are in simple English, and your new changes to "Albert Einstein" were not simple. Please see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages so you can write more simply in the future. Thank you. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please take note:

I have noticed that the quotation marks are being used in an Italian mode such as »word«, «and». We are talking in the corrector "word" and it is confusing the first best out loading for first. This is not good and should using out of the why. Please fix the problems and the fr33kman 17:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman What were you trying to say here? I understand that the Italian quotation marks are wrong, but the rest is not coherent. Kk.urban (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary findings which are enabled as Fix of [ https://lite.qwant.com/?q=freek+waves = 33 ] (cc engin please see: https://lite.qwant.com/?q=gin+drinking+problem as suggested tangential vectorial: 22:39, 22 October 2023‎): "without waves is the gods and [ φρένας ] conscience" gleaned from Ευριπίδης (sorry about the 1595 years delay, the translation was difficult). if that doesn't work try https://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/people/jeremy-fix/ (is my opinion only, I am not a medical doctor) Brief: 1911 - 2022. effected at time (T) shown plus variable for response at recipient = r. (Tr) is rebound Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC) ← T =

addendum: without waves = moon (lunar cycles - the /c/ breaks on the sure (the man-beach-standing is not sure - uncertainty - tainted)) + [118 is (if in the United States: ju jitsu if not, avoid with extreme prejudice) (if in England: it was the best they could do old chap, without it we would have been a goner)] (it's cryptic!) (PSYCHOANALYSIS A: my charge: see WilliAm GAtes for the Bill) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban discussion on Simple talk

Hello, because of the changes you made to Schizophrenia, there is now a discussoion on Simple talk, about restricting your rights to edit some or all articles on this Wiipedia. You have added a lot of text, and much of it has problems: One of them is that it isn't easy to understand. I would likey you to take note of that discussion; you are welcome to add your views as well. Eptalon (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon: @Fr33kman: I noticed the bytes count is rising in contradiction to the agreement we made at Talk so decided to disconnect again for peer-review and any comments. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC) The changes I made are in the intro (reviewing of the recent changes) and "psychotic symptoms" Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) My bytes change was 5587, by Eptalon was 3809 + 220 + 317 + 930 + 347 = 5616 approximately (as not including deletions & Fr33kman) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 5587 +16 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For making the article Schizophrenia so much better than it was! fr33kman 19:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is now a Barn owl:

and does have the power of lift-off.

Is not a very valued owl though

(rocket-science yes, brain-surgery, no) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Talent (or talons): being talented with talons is better - useful for making skills. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

satisfaction(facts) = satellitically lumière (and in the phonetic sense) not stellar Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I already sante (and santa (sans clause) already): for a paysan I have no barn currently, doctor Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Good job

Thanks for all your hard work on Schizophrenia you are doing a really good job. It is much easier to read than it was and breaking it up into smaller articles is having the wanted effect. :) fr33kman 19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

yes is now with more I-so-[ lay-shun ] Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to keep the encyclopedia looking neat and professional. Using different styles in the encyclopedia, as you did to "Risk factors and possible causes of schizophrenia", can make it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about changing this encyclopedia. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove quick deletion tags from articles, as you did to "(1874 - 1641)", without a good reason. If you think the article should not be deleted, please add {{wait}} to the article and explain your reason on the article's talk page. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make bad pages, such as (1874 - 1641). Doing so is against our rules. If you would like to test, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I gave a reason, r3 doesn't apply, you're stating is not a good reason - but isn't a typo... and you didn't respond so users of the link will be redirected to the redirect not the landing page Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I already described in the Talk page, isn't an article Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

and what do you think is bad about it? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) it isn't a typo, is simply for use on the article to add to the content inside the article, not a search criteria Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page of the redirect. (1874 - 1641) is not a valid year range in most contexts, and it's so ambiguous that it shouldn't exist as a redirect. It doesn't say what the date range is about. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I already explained on the talk page and here also - the redirect is a graphic for the context of the redirect specifically for the article so that the redirect doesn't show the exact sub-heading at the landing page Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

the redirect is created for a different reason that the quick deletion criticism Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the year is in the wrong order, which makes no sense to a reader, and you can just pipe the section link. The reader won't care or notice what the actual link is. (1641-1874) works fine. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. Reading from left to right the obvious sequence is given by 1874 - 1641, other than reversing the three so that 1641-1874 is usable Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any preference of which of the two is used - isn't the problem Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Piping the section link complicates the article Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

RfD nomination of (1874 - 1641)

An editor has requested deletion of (1874 - 1641), a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/(1874 - 1641) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Simple Talk Discussion

There is a discussion at WP:Simple Talk that you are involved in. The thread is WP:ST#User:Simpul skitsofreeneea.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Sz

An editor has requested deletion of Sz, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Sz and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

This is the only warning you will get for your disruptive comments. If you make another personal attack on another person, you will be blocked for disruption. Talk about the changes editors have made, not the editors. Do NOT call people fascists. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thread on Simple Talk

Please move your thread to the bottom of Simple Talk, as new threads go on the bottom. Thank you. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need to. I just saw it is part of the other one. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay.

What do you think about the current situation: Simple Talk ? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I just thought: Following the thread, we find a bull-Minotaur that isn't there. In a maize in wikipedia-world. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How is the Minotaur related to the discussion at Simple Talk? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about my thoughts on the article? --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think he is talking about your thoughts on the thread. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Minotaur is not in Japan though Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any as I viewed a few pages of your edits: I meant the things you looked at at Simple Talk: but I'd like to know thoughts on the article, if you have any Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@つがる: comments Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke

An editor has requested deletion of Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Non drug use inhalation of tobacco smoke and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Sjö (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for one month for disruptive editing.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. fr33kman 23:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What are the examples of disruptive editing ? Shouldn't there be a process of discussion before enforcing a block. You didn't provide an indication of how I was being disruptive, and there isn't any indication of discussion in your edit list so how what is the reason for the enforcement? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC) I see your reason in Talk:Schizophrenia#It's not working "As it stands this article totally fails WP:SI." but looking at the scores for the article they aren't total failure infact https://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp: 67.74 isn't a failure Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is just a comment as I'm very much involved in the discussion in the ST thread, but you should not post three different unblock requests (just make one), and no, a discussion is not always necessary before blocking. But in this case, there was a discussion in Simple Talk and it seems clear that your poor English is getting to the point of being very disruptive.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We have talked about this many times. The Flesch-Kincaid score being good does not mean the article is simple. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Well that is one version of the reality and I don't see "poor english" (or a paraphrase) being mentioned as a reason.

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Simpul_skitsofreeneea (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

As I indicated the reason given was "completely fails" to which my response is this isn't true and this is provable by copypasting the article into the Flesch-Kincaid calculators. So what I'm stating is the blocking editor's rationalle for the block: "As it stands this article totally fails WP:SI...complex material.." is patently and provably not true (please view for yourself to verify (obviously from the title to the reference heading not with the references and including the reference numbers (greater FK = lower other scores is the necessary version of txt to reiterate): the score at https://www.online-utility.org/ is 67.57 which is approximate with https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ the Gunning Fog is synonomous with 50 to 60 in FK goodcalculators.com which is below, other than the GF & SMOG (both of which are 10~) the "Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text" is 8.34-.42 (8th grade: inputing anything into the https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ provides the grades and scores to locate what it is I'm referring to here, the link to GF here shows the grade per years) which synonomous to FK within 60 to 70, but the FK score when I startd (14:46, 10 October 2023) was 41.08, GF was 14.09, "Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text" was 12 - 13), so isn't a reason. What I'm stating is: as you indicated, a discussion occured, a consensus was reached the administrator proceeded, but the argument-reasons do not exist in reality, are false, are faulty, are not legitimate: this is not my biased opinion if you view the scores the error of the consensus is obvious. So proceeding from the rationalle will not bring about a process where-by reality is observed - as reason - so reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Providing support for someone with no valid reason provides a variety of possible responses of which there is no possile defence - I cannot defend my position because people arguing against me, are not using legitimate reason, so there is no possible reasonable argument that could find any audience - that is to have any way of changing the situation. If all members involved provide support for each other against someone (i.e. myself) this is simply stating solidarity is a reason (if solidarity is taken as being synonomous with consensus). The administrator proceeded from a non-valid cause which is presumed «reason» so reality: and by blocking has effected the reality in actuality. Actually made the reality a block from the reality of an argument in Talk from the reason "fails" so the sequence is "fails" (1) → disussion with the apprearance of reason (or logic) (2) → has proceeded to act on the discussion (3): the sequence cannot proceed to 3 because 1 isn't valid. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block is for continually pushing back on feedback and making articles considerably harder for a typical person to read. Your block is not for failing to reduce improve the FK score of articles (which formed the premise of the entire block appeal). The long convoluted writing in the above block appeal suggests that the point is being missed entirely. -- Chenzw  Talk  09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Simple Talk

There is a discussion in which you may be involved at simple talk: WP:Simple Talk#User:Simpul skitsofreenea. You may leave your replies here to be pasted to the talk page. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Simpul. I see that you got a one-month block because enough SEWP editors believe your English is too poor for your article contributions to help more than they hurt. Have you considered trying the English Wikinews? It's been a long time since I edited there regularly, but I remember the review team being very interested in correcting and getting drafters to improve their writing. A lot of the other contributors speak English as a not-first language. That could be a good place to practice and improve. Limited English skill is a solvable problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)]

I might/may-well do as you suggested. Just a corrector: I made the english language look that way to obey the FK scores, it isn't how I usually communicate. The proof of this is observable at the previous sentence. And the previous sentence after the 1st sentence which I indicated which is the same sentence as this sentence. And the previous sentence to this sentence. et cetera. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC) hope this elucidates. Still though I do think the suggestion could help so thanks for your effort to appease. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being a medical contributors!

The 2023 Cure Award

In 2023 you were one of the top medical editors in your language. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining for 2024, there are no associated costs. Additionally one of our primary efforts revolves around translation of health content. We invite you to try our new workflow if you have not already. Our dashboard automatically collects statistics of your efforts and we are working on tools to automatically improve formating.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)