User talk:Platyna

Proposed deletion of The Mana World
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Mana World, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  TN ‑ X - Man  18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mana World
I understand that you put a lot of effort into this article. However, I cannot find any reliable sources that show why this game/software is notable beyond the nomination for an award.  TN ‑ X - Man  19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Mana World
I have nominated The Mana World, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Mana World. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  TN ‑ X - Man  19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Platyna, please always assume good faith (and always sign your posts on discussion pages with 4 tilde's (4 x ~). As I said on the AfD, it exists on hundreds of thousands of computers around the world, it's notable, and I would say that you don't even need an independant review based on that. However, the two links I provided above are 2 separate sites with at least some review. There should be no further discussion needed about notability or referencability. BMW  (drive)  18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tmw-logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tmw-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Platnya, I'm repeating what I said on the Mana AfD:

Do not allow this specific incident to stop you. About a month ago I created about 2-dozen stubs in Project Caribbean (all of which have since been expanded by others), and surprisingly got a Barnstar for it. A week later I created a couple of dozen more stubs based on music of Newfoundland and Labrador (all from REDLINKS) and had a few of them PROD'd. All of them have since remained and been expanded upon by others. A BOT actually blanked one of the articles based on WP:COPY which was wrong, and I (as asked) noted that on the bot owners page. An editor failed to notice that, and re-blanked it 2 days later. After a bot-blank and live editor-blank, I was pretty fed up. Sure, I have not created so many stubs lately, but I now follow these simple rules with my stubs: always include at least 2 independent references, and always link it to a project via the discussion page. BMW (drive)  12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I do appreciate your support, however I am quite unable to appreciate my work being demolished rspecially that I have other things I could put my time into (I am involved in several non profit and for profit projects). Platyna (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Mana World
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Mana World. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BMW (drive)  11:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't underestand. The administrator has closed the discussion without even participating in it, he also remove my message to him from his user page. Platyna (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a 3rd step to review deletions ... DRV It is NOT a page to rehash the same arguments, it's a page to say that wrong policy was used, the article is in progress, and even that you are willing to have it deleted in a month if you have been unable to improve it.   BMW  (drive)   —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, It looks like it is lost case since there are 3x endorsed by admins. Looks they would rather die than admit one of them was wrong. Platyna (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to German Shepherd. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

SomeImage.jpg

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

January 2019
Please do not use thumbnails inside of infoboxesas you did to German Shepherd. Note that this is your second warning regarding this issue. Continuing to add thumbnails will be seen as disruptive editing. For more information please see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. When adding an image, instead of doing:

SomeImage.jpg

You can simply supply the name of the image. So in this case just do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Second time I have warned you about this and for the SAME PAGE.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: your comment on the deletion discussion. Discretionary sanctions alerts aren't threats. They exist to make sure that people are aware that they are operating in an area where discretionary sanctions exist. It is an attempt to make someone aware of the potential issue before there is any reason for an administrator to take action. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not stupid. And administrators shouldn't call people liars or yap about how someone has 10 times more edits - nobody cares. Everyone has a right to judge other persons action, which the users I stood to defend did. This is why I so rarely have anything to do with Wikipedia. Platyna (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on anything you said, or any point you may or may not have made. I'm just clarifying what DS alerts exist to do. They generally aren't considered threats and implying that one is just makes you look ignorant of Wikipedia policies. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If I will need an information from you or anyone else I will ask. Stop spamming my talk page. Platyna (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Your edit to LGBT parenting has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you just copyright stroke a scientific paper??? Now, this calls for an arbitration committee. SAGE journals citations ARE NOT copyright material, now this is a blatant attempt at censorship. Not to mention, you deleted a whole edit, not just one link. I am bringing it back and filling for arbitration. Platyna (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The source paper is marked as "© Catholic Medical Association 2016", so to copypaste from that source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because? Do you understand that Linacre is one of the colleges at Oxford University? And Linacre Q is a SCOPUS/Web of Science indexed journal, oldest and well respected journal about the bioethics AND this was a literature review quoting numerous other studies AND you deleted a whole edit with ALL references not only from Linacre Q? Are you now going to run through all the Wikipedia articles referencing research done in Jesus College in Cambridge, or what? What you did is a vandalism, I am filling for arbitration. Platyna (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of indef for legal threats}. 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) I blocked your account for a legal threat (see WP:Legal threats) in this edit. I know that you do not think this is a legal threat, but your opinion hardly matters at this point. To have a chance of getting unblocked, you have to post, at this page, an unblock request, in which you clearly state that you did not mean any legal threats, and that you would be removing the statement upon unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So amusing seeing Wikipedia administrators posting documents they either did not read or not understood. Does this quote sound familiar to you? Let me ci...erm...I meant "plagiarize" it for you:


 * "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action."
 * "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." (This is what I did, I complained I was being slandered, but since I am on the "wrong" side of LGBT parenting discussion my wellbeing did not matter) You just made a peasant with pitchfork and torch out of yourself, and seeing this was worth a ban. Platyna (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the legal threat was the only valid reason for which you could have been blocked (and not banned, for that matter), then you're sorely mistaken. I wouldn't come down too hard on an inexperienced editor for not knowing the rules of a highly esoteric process like ArbCOM – although you evidently did dismiss an automated warning to that extent – but your seemingly wholesale inability to even entertain the possibility of you being in the wrong somehow and everyone else not being part of some shadowy cabal conspiracy makes for a distinctly more practical reason for the community to not waste any more time here. Your recent edits to this page can only lead me to believe that you're not even aware of the basic technical difference between simple section blanking and revision deleting, as your request for arbitration has not, in fact, been "censored" and lost to the void – it's right here, in the history of the page you posted it to. So please, spare me the nonsense about this project I initially loved, like you're some kind of long-term contributor whose most recent one-hundred contributions don't go back to 2008.  Angry Harpy    talk 19:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in anything you have to say. Get off me. Admin stated the bogus reason used to ban me when I objected to disgusting censorship of science. Wikipedia founders left this project because of this sole reason. What I posted was properly cited and backed up by science, I am a scientist, I fulfilled my duty to stand up for science. I do not regret, in fact I am proud of myself as I did what is right. And as copies of everything are provided, anyone can make their own mind who was right - me or the censors. What you do now is nothing more than a petty, abject bullying and insults. Platyna (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I revoked the talk page access since it was only used for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked because I stood for science.
I am a scientist, an LGBT person, after 15 years on Wikipedia I was permanently blocked under a bogus threat - legal threats - which never happened, I said "I could sue" not "I will sue" after being accused of plagiarism after quoting two sentences from a scientific publication, all according to Wikipedia guidelines. Quoting Oxford English Dictionary on definition of threat also didn't help my case, Wikipedia administrators does not care about reliable and respectable sources if they go against their opinions. The real reason is that I did a scientifically sourced edit in LGBT parenting article where I quoted several respected papers, that clearly shows there is no consensus when it comes to outcomes of same-sex parenting. The edit was deleted, I filed a complaint, where I was accused of plagiarism and legal threats. Here is the link, I have a copy in PDF in case they will delete it too, available upon request:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#LGBT_parenting (deleted to hide the real reasons for the block)
 * https://archive.md/4T0Vw (mirror)

Here are the screenshots of my "inappropriate facts" edit:
 * https://i.ibb.co/C8ZhLPh/Zrzut-ekranu-z-2021-12-10-22-13-25.png

This is what Wikipedia had become - a political propaganda tube, there is no space for LGBT people with stating "inappropriate facts" nor impartial scientists who wished to show all sides of interesting topic and fight misinformation. There is no consensus, we need more data, longer follow-ups, I have numerous publications. Not once political and propaganda forced tried to affect science, but science and therefore truth will prevail, you can ban a person, but you can't ban ideas and facts. I fulfilled my duty as a scientist. Platyna (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC) I will not edit my legal threats as I made none, you are well aware of this fact, as well as that you banned me in the middle of debate when I am clearly right on a deeply politicized topic. This is why I will not appeal this ban, as it is proof of what Wikipedia has become. I stand by science, you stand on a stack of burning books. Have a nice day. Platyna (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I will try this once, because I understand that you feel that this has been unfair. I am not opening a discussion with you. I am offering you advice based upon experience here.
 * It is very important that you do not leave thinking that you have been blocked because of your views. You have not. You have been blocked because of your behaviour, and only because of your behaviour.
 * Rules are susceptible to interpretation. Four participants at the ArbCom case request view that you have made a legal threat. One other warned you about your behaviour, suggesting that you stopped talking because the behaviour you were exhibiting was digging a big hole.
 * Assuming that editing Wikipedia is important to your, please stand back and consider how the behaviours you have exhibited look to other people. I suggest most strongly that you allow a 24 hour period before you act, either to reply to me, or to request an unblock. I do see that you have said you will not appeal the block (it is not a ban, it is a block). Even so I suggest you consider it. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to request unblock, I am innocent. I will focus on spreading the message of what happened here and what Wikipedia, the project I initially loved, had become. I never made any threats, I made a properly sourced and strictly adherent to Wikipedia guidelines edit, then I fought for it with a bunch of fools, who think that killing the scientific debate will help people like me (LGBT). Furthermore, I am an autistic person, proper English is very important for me. You used "your" instead of you and made several other language errors, which is very unpleasant for me to read. Platyna (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my many typing errors. I will not engage with you further. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing, Your statement that words that have a well-defined meaning, also included in respectable sources, such as legal books and English dictionaries, are a subject of democratic vote is RIDICULOUS! And it clearly shows what the heck is wrong with Wikipedia today. A threat is "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done." No matter how many and of who will vote otherwise. Leave me be. Platyna (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would be best, that you stay away from Wikipedia. What you do off it, is your time & effort. PS - It might be best, that your talkpage access be denied, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me, I am not interested in your insults, but I am getting email notifications about them. You have nothing interesting to say, and you hate me just because I pointed out false consensus claims in the topic you have formed a strong opinion about with a complete ignorance of the full picture. DO NOT spam my talk page any more. And I have a copy of my talk page, so I don't care about further petty attempts of censorship. Platyna (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined
Your request for arbitration has been declined as premature. If you are unblocked, you are encouraged to start with one of our dispute resolution options; the Arbitration Committee is intended for major problems that cannot be resolved by the community and should only be used if other dispute resolution options have failed. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)