User talk:UniversalHumanTranscendence

July 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Set have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Set was changed by UniversalHumanTransendence (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.922596 on 2021-07-30T01:52:48+00:00

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Root (disambiguation). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Rdp060707&#124;talk 06:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

First sentence
Hi - you're changing a lot of articles to make the subject of the article act as the first word of the first sentence. That isn't a requirement - it's often done, but it's not necessary, and sometimes reads awkwardly. Please don't do that. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  06:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is awkward to start the article with the word in, which is ambiguous. What’s your definition of in, in this case of the S-Matrix? Where possible we should try to start the article with the word we are trying to describe or define. It’s a standard convention. Why do you prefer starting all these articles with the word in? UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , MOS:FIRST discusses this. It advises that the subject of the article be the subject of the first sentence, but it doesn't require it to be the first word. Those sentences read better before your changes; you actually rendered some of them ungrammatical. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please take a look at WP:EW. If your edit is reverted, that means your change is contested. The onus is then on you to get consensus for it. Propose the change on the talk page and discuss with other users, don't just reinstate it. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Without a basic understanding of the S-matrix, you may not properly understand the grammar of the word in, in this case. It would be easier for one to start with the article physics, however that is not a good reason to place physics before the S-matrix. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The article you reference states:

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence: UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is possible and grammatically correct to place S-matrix before in physics UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Give me an example of the edit I made rendering the article grammatically incorrect. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the sentence, prior to your changes, used an article before 'S-matrix' ('the S-matrix'). I assume that is standard usage, and would still be required if S-matrix was placed before the prepositional phrase - that's what made it ungrammatical.
 * You did the same thing at Root. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not going to just keep re-editing while you’re reverting but what you’re saying makes no sense. You’re trying to say that standard usage is to not place the article's title as early as possible in the first sentence.

If this is not what you mean what do you assume is standard usage? To place other articles ahead of the bolder article title? If you don’t respond to this I will rêver to S-matrix first. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because I’m fixing multiple articles does not mean that it is incorrect. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By 'article', I'm referring the the word 'the' (the definite article). It needs to precede 'S-matrix'.
 * With regards to the other stuff, it's not ungrammatical to place a prepositional phrase after the subject of the sentence, but I don't see it as an improvement. Many, many articles start with 'In such and such', if you're going to go around changing all of them you should start a discussion at the MOS talk page first. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have started an article on the MOS talk page. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s an improvement for AI spiders on the web UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And it is also an improvement according to wiki standards in the article you referenced of placing the title as early as possible in the article UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to revert the s-matrix article. Please do not undo it. I want to see if someone other than you has a problem with it and can join the conversation. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed the word 'the'? It's ungrammatical without it. We don't write articles to comply with what benefits AI spiders.
 * Please look at WP:BRD. You want to make the change - I have contested it - the onus is now on you to gain consensus for the change, not on me. The status quo ante should be retained until you gain consensus. Please therefore self-revert. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is removed because it is redundant and confusing UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see another example of an advanced opener:

Ra (rꜥ or rˤ; also transliterated rˤw ; cuneiform: ri-a or ri-ia) or Re (ⲣⲏ, Rē)

Let’s see if someone other than you reverts my change to the BRD article by removing the redundant ‘The’ and joins the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Let’s see if someone else responds to my removal of ‘The’ from the BRD article and joins the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is English your first language? 'Ra' is a name - they generally don't take articles (you wouldn't refer to me as 'The Girth Summit'). Mass nouns and plurals can sometimes also be used sometimes without articles: "butter is tasty" or "I like bananas". Regular nouns, when used in the singular, take an article: "The cat sat on the mat." "A bicycle may be faster than a car if the streets are congested". (That last one has an example of a plural noun taking an article - that's sometimes necessary, it depends).
 * 'The' is not redundant in those instances where you have changed it. You should probably also read WP:POINT. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ra is a diety

A Ra vs Ra UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You could also start the article:

A Ra, in dieties, is… UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No you couldn't. 'Ra', the word, is a name used to refer to a deity. It doesn't take an article when used to refer to the deity, as in the example you give above. It might take an article if there were multiple deities with that name, or different representations of the deity (e.g. 'The Ra of ancient Egyptian mythology is very different from the Ra depicted in comic books'). Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits let someone else either revert and join the conversation or leave my edits UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How about you stop making the edits until you gain consensus to do so. That's the point of the BRD cycle - you make an edit, someone contests it, and then you stop until discussion is concluded. You seem to think that it is the person who is contesting it who needs to form a consensus against your change - that is not the case. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re the problem. You’re the only one reverting. Let someone else read it and join the conversation UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a 'problem', that's how this environment works. If you make a change, it only takes one person to disagree and revert it - at that point, you stop, and you don't reinstate it until you have consensus. Besides, I see that someone else has now reverted you at Set (mathematics), so I'm not the only one who thinks these changes are ungrammatical.
 * I feel I should warn you that I'm very close to losing my patience with these edits, which I view as disruptive. I'm not going to block your account myself, since I've been the one reverting and discussing this with you, but if you reinstate any of those changes without gaining consensus, I will raise a thread at an appropriate noticeboard and ask another admin to step in. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * has been very patient. You joined Wikipedia yesterday and have managed to make edits on several different pages which have been (correctly) reverted. You should slow down a bit and work harder at editing collaboratively or, as GS says, end up being blocked as a disruptive editor. --Macrakis (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You should be commenting on the MOS lead section talk page where there is a discussion about this, where I am addressing the subject. Please comment there if you want In physics to come before S-Matrix. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, it has improved my editing! UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Color, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Light intensity and Hues. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I had intentionally linked to disambiguating pages because most, if not all, of the topics listed there were, and are likely continuously, relevant to the topic of color. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Physceptual systems


A tag has been placed on Physceptual systems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. 188.232.146.110 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Milky Way (disambiguation). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. this edit appears un-constructive. Hemanthah (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content / original research. 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the edits I have recently made amount to verifiable statements:
 * The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
 * The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.


 * Please see: User:UniversalHumanTranscendence/Physceptual_systems
 * Hi ,
 * This is not purely about your most recent contributions, but your most recent contributions caused someone to annoyedly file a report at WP:AIV. Looking through your contributions, I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose, using it as a webhost/forum for the publication of original research and neologisms. I was also not surprised, looking at the messages above and your user page, that considering oneself to be the "root of the universe" turned out to be incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment.
 * If the "Milky Way" edits ( and ) have been made in good faith (I assume that's the case!), there's not much to argue here: You have joined Wikipedia with a perception of being "the root of the universe", this perception has not changed, yet it turned out to be disruptive multiple times.
 * It's fine if you think the universe revolves around you, but this thought currently seems to come with a lack of compatibility with this community. There's an option, though: You could unblock yourself using your transcendental powers.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are, as an individual (and as a representative of this community and organization), causing a retardation of planetary technological, mathematical, languagetical (languatical?), etc... comprehension and progress. I made those Milky Way edits once and when someone reverted them I did not put them back up. The edits I make are verifiable and therefore do not contradict wikipedia's policies. If people on this planet are not welcome to develop logical language and/or share verifiable stuff on this website and/or with this community I guess it is time to ditch Wikipedia and get a new website going where people are actually free to share. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments. At least read the intro paragraph to technological singularity and think, also act in a responsible way as an individual ‘freely’ decisioning. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)