User talk:Autonomous agent 5

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) 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antimatter-catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project Icarus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Autonomous agent 5. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Chainlink (blockchain), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Autonomous agent 5. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Autonomous agent 5|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's an incorrect presumption that I'm being paid; neither has this editor had any dialogue written or verbal with anyone employed or representing the org. company, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd just like to bring your attention to the article under discussion here - there isn't any indication that I would need to distort information from source to; promote unduly, advocate, support beyond the scope of editorial responsibilities, provide an unbalanced weight (bias) to source material (I'm not an authority on the subject here debated so I don't have a prior knowledge of the relevant sources to select some to provide a bias) - I understand the motivation of your request for disclosure - but I don't see how you would think the content reflects a suspicion of bias due to payment - c.f. the summary @ 11:24, 6 July 2021‎ "the tone isn't advertising, this editor thinks the contesting editor is presuming the subject (finance, marketing, sales, etc) indicates a certain reality which is though unperceivable at this time" although I see our disagreement in reality has proved in part (although not completely) in you favour (with obligation from my own conforming to your position) c.f. 18:56, 6 July 2021‎ and after, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to state to the contesting editor, I feel the editors choices represent a certain insensitivity and lack of consideration for source-copy/content relationship - and represent an incredulity at the editor which is founded in a lack of comprehension of the subject here discussed - and the reason this editor states this, is for the same reason given - which is that the copy/content is easily verifiable as representing the source, by a review of the source to compare - which causes this editor to consider the contesting editor hasn't reviewed the sources to verify for himself the veracity which I confirm exists here in this statement. with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this editor does not hope to bring the downfall of either co-active editors (such as the contesting editor) or any org., establishment, reality, situation of right or good in wikipedia society today - and this editor sees that the contesting editor has reverted the contributions to the article again @ 08:57, 7 July 2021 with a similar vindication as prev., but the contesting editor could see for his own self: "The Chainlink oracle is the most utilized oracle service currently existing within cyberspace. ref name=unesco is sourced to UNESCO and is easily verifiable at the source - this brings me to question the contesting editors position as obstructing the progress of development in the article here debated - I would urge the contesting editor to reconsider his position of reality on this subject as this editor could find no reason for the reversion (although did find reason for reversion @ the 09:41 - 09:45, 6 July 2021‎ group of reversions, when prev. this editor was incredulous to the contesting editors motivation with regards to that group), with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC) change after signature - corr., rwr 10:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) corr. 10:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not a promotional editor, I urge you to stop behaving like one, and stop repeatedly putting in promotional sources and removing the tags about the promotional sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ofc, but if you could show which of the sources you consider to be promotional, since, I'm presuming, although the titles seem promotional, the sources themselves are RS, indicates the promotion is a de facto situation i.e. the reason the source(s) look promotional is because the org. company is behaving and providing a service which is worthy of support not criticism, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the promotional aspect - I see the wording of the intro sentences (prior to reversion) could be construed as promotional (so I'm intending to remedy this) which is something which your reversion at this recent group brought to realization, but if there is any other contest of the article; I feel your being unduly suspicious, tbh, your responses @ the article represent a good but the effecting of change to the article at this reversion group isn't the value which the first reversion group brought to the article, as the lead editor @ the article, I couldn't find any problem with the sourcing-copy/content except for the content added at places misrepresented the sources, @ the time of the inclusion 01:16 - 03:10, 5 July 2021 & 17:19, 5 July 2021‎, if you could review my summaries you will see I changed the wording to conform to your indication in the body of the article after the 1st reversion group, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC) ‎[reply]

You are citing entire paragraphs to primary sources and press releases - no sign of a third-party RS in sight. Additionally, you are putting weird gibberish into the intro like "in the cyberspace dimension"; you are citing a claim about the white paper being released in 2017 to an unrelated paper written in 1999. (That one, you keep edit-warring back in.)

I urge you once more: stop using anything other than independent, verifiable

Yes I was negligent to not review that users edits @ 01:16, 5 July 2021 - I just took his contribution on good faith - but it's too bad really because the source is relevant (at least "Juels" is shown in the source) - so made changes to the article to conform to your observation @ 23:49 - 52, 7 July 2021, but I haven't looked thoroughly through that source yet which I'll proceed with after this comm, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"(a Cornell professor of computer science who coined the term proof of work) " @ 01:16, 5 July 2021 suppose the contributing user thought (perhaps correctly) "We formalize the notion of a proof of work" indicates the former statement - the source shows "RSA Laboratories Bedford USA" for Juels though, regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the weird changes again. You're mounting spirited defenses of your weird usages of unclear and unencyclopedic writing that verge on

Please also desist with the promotional and primary cites in crypto-related articles.

I urge you to take seriously the general sanctions on crypto-related articles, which you have been notified of - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so my response to the editor who is reading this comment: the "Publications" section is only a statement of just as the section heading shows - describe to this editor please how the contesting editor, that is the editor who this comment is directed towards, thinks there is a problem with the inclusion of the section - this editor considers the contesting editors opinions to be indicative of a non-constructive position on the subject - given the opportunity here to respond to justify the position stated on how all the edits are incorrect, before this editor considers gaining the opinion of some other individual (very similarly to the beneficial effects which user:David Gerard has had on the critical aspect of the article) to gain a critical position on the contesting user (that is user:David Gerard) - to reiterate - that isn't possible user because there isn't a problem currently with the content currently so you've made a mistake - simply, obviously - for whatever reason you think your opinions are reality, disrupting the progress of the article development isn't my problem if you don't give me an answer which looks reasonable user - is my reply to you user, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question, please state it clearly - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly alarmed that this user does not have the

well obvs. that's a possible concern, but you are able to understand this reply I'm sure - I think I'd like to see where exactly you think this editor doesn't have the WP:CIR - please give this editor examples, which would aid this editor in the improvement of the skills thought necessary - if you are able to find some, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Radiation have been reverted. The first two sentences of the lede make clear that the article is about radiation. Your changes to the lede exclude all but one category of radiation. In the future please know about the subject before editing a page. Kardoen (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do you see the CUP source is an error ?:

In physics, radiation is the emission or transmission of energy caused by a nuclear reaction - reverted content

"radiation a form of energy that comes from a nuclear reaction" - CUP

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down in your source you can read the other definitions. In physics radiation is not only emitted by nuclear processes. I expect you to revert your change yourself. (Also don't go using acronyms like CUP without establishing it. It only makes communicanten more difficult.)

Besides that, it is considered rude to change the section title in a talk page like you just did. I expect you to revert your change yourself.

Kardoen (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

editor, all I see is "PHYSICS energy in the form of waves or particles (= any of the smallest pieces of matter that make up atoms):", with regards. (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that dictionary statement doesn't refute the statement at the head of the source page, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what I'm saying to you is the other definitions aren't different enough to make the content you reverted wrong, if you like, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in review of the source reverted @ the 1st reversion Joyce, Malcolm (18 September 2017). "Chapter 1. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS". Nuclear Engineering A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power (Ebook).

ISBN 9780081010518. Retrieved 7 July 2021 – via Microsoft Bing - Google Books. Nuclear Engineering: A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power provides coverage of the introductory, salient principles of nuclear engineering in a comprehensive manner for those entering the profession at the end of their degree. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link

)

I would agree with the contesting editor that CUP is in error to state "nuclear" without inc. atomic but I couldn't find how "nuclear" + "atomic" (electron shell) would not describe correctly - considering the source shown here - considering both sources show the definition inc. the factor(s) "nuclear" "atomic" but the wikipedia article doesn't show either, is my reasoning, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC) corr. 18:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When even your discussions of your edits are in this strange style, it comes across much more like performance art than productive editing. Please stop doing this - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I urge you, Autonomous agent 5, to read the article. The article is about all kinds of radiation. Besides ionizing radiation this includes, radio waves, microwaves, gravitational waves and acoustic waves. These are not exclusively caused by atomic processes. I hope you can see that having the lede on an article define the subject in a way that does not include the majority this subject is not helpful.

On an other note I agree with David Gerard, and other editors here on your talk page. Your replies are written in a weird style that does not contribute to effective communication. Throwing in an entire source blurb makes it hard to read your sentences. Using acronyms before establishing them before, leaving finding out what you mean to the other party, only serves to make communication more confusing. Other uses have a name, calling people, "user or "editor" makes it less easy to know who you are referring to. Also it comes across like your are role-playing, this comes across as disrespectful and not taking others seriously. Kardoen (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am here because I read the report you filed at

You need to show some improvement in your editing and your ability to collaborate with other editors, or you risk being blocked for

• 18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section
• reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources
  WP: RSP
  @ 15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion"
• cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Remedies "All articles related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ 12 successive reverts by the editor as is viewable @

Chainlink", with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC) bold type 14:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason for the WP:AN3 is this user doesn't think David Gerard is behaving rationally at the last revert nor in the summary expression. His summaries are just genralizations - he hasn't specified the exact positions - discussed the article, contributed any content to the article either sources or copy - for example "gibberish" is simply inflammatory language - if you would care to review the article content - and the user has concluded his contributions of reversions and deletions by disrupting the progress of the article. You and other users are confusing the contributing earlier reversions/ deletions (lets presume they were contributory for the sake of this argument) with the fact the user has repeatedly removed valid content to then legitimize the removal with a tag with an expression of criticism in the summary - which doesn't though in every case equate in review to the actual changes the editor has made, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your response only confirms my view of you as an editor. First, you should focus on your conduct, not your complaints about others and your own agenda. Second, stop referring to yourself in the third person (you've been told this before) - it's off-putting, difficult to understand, and pompous. Third, stop using inflammatory rhetoric when describing events ("assaultative liberty", whatever that means); it's not conducive to civil discourse.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here is the autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem, my conduct - that is of course acceptable of course - but if it were the case that David Gerard is in error and therefore the discoveries of you or other users of errors by this user are to some degree caused by the errors of David Gerard - arriving here simply to criticise without taking a balanced view of the situation - that the criticisms of David Gerard might be true, doesn't create a situation where defence against your criticisms is possible - because you have ignored an aspect of the problem, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

imagining that the energy of any thought in a social situation - in which decisions are made - such as in wikipedia - although the different users are in separate places to each other (accepting this as true for this argument) the energy of another user changes the energy situation (synaptically specifically) of any another wikipedia user in a situation where there is exchange of information between those users (i.e. written words) - localizing the problem at one user is an error therefore because for example David Gerard and this user are in a shared energy situation - i.e. processing of sensory date (i.e. light and information from wikipedia contributions) - the situation is reactionary between the two users - not an example of the actual people as they exist exclusively, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post is gibberish. The change to your signature is an improvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately. The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

If you have a claim, state it in ordinary and comprehensible terms - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in my understanding authors are 1st editors 2nd - so when BluntTone added the info. (i.e. an author) I was involved in an editorial response, then you arrived and you were active as an editor also - is how the conflict here is occurring (firstly) - secondarily, I can't make any progress with the article currently because every time I rwr (after your editorial indication in the summary or a tag on the article) and then find you have reverted, and then return info. from sources I can see are in the green @

WP:RSP or can't be thought not RS because the contents aren't contentious (for example I'm sure UNESCO wouldn't make a mistake, write something that isn't true - considering the nature of the org. although the source isn't in the RSP list) you re-revert with a tag - this last version is barely any improvement - the reverted sources look to me legit and viable - the copy I've added - you don't seem to want to review the sources to re-write yourself - sure you have observed correctly the prom advertising tone which I was able to detect with the pointer in your summary and tag - but @ this last version I can't see how to make any more improvements because of the reasons I've already given in this response - you should re-write the article yourself to eliminate the advertising - and there's barely any info. in the article compared to some articles on wikipedia - so I'm not sure how you would/will do the rewrite if the tone barely exists - there's only a few words it wouldn't take much time - why you haven't done the rwr yourself? - I think this conjecture: you deleted/ reverted and in many cases is correct - then found prom/advert then I found your indication - now you hope this situation will occur again, like a girl on a fairground ride "daddy daddy can we do it again?" - but we already solved the situation I can assure you the contents were dealt with at some time historically @ the current version after BluntTone's additions, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC) corr. "t" 18:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Because of the legal threat and personal attacks, I've removed the unblock request and revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading [[:File:{{{1}}}]]. 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) 17:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]