User Talk: Scientelensia

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

<div style="border:1px solid #a3bfb1; background:#DFFFDF; width:99%; padding:4px; margin-bottom:10px">
<div style="border:1px solid #a3bfb1; background:#EFFFEF; width:99%; padding:4px">
/Archive1 ↗ '''|''' /Archive2 ↗ '''|''' /Archive3 ↗ '''|''' /Archive4 ↗ '''|''' /Archive5
</div style="border:1px solid #a3bfb1; background:#DFFFDF; width:99%; padding:4px; margin-bottom:10px">
</div style="border:1px solid #a3bfb1; background:#EFFFEF; width:99%; padding:4px">
thumb|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies.|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|'''Welcome to this talk page!''' ↗ ↗

Stepping back.

Please read my warning on the DRV carefully. I am very serious. You are starting to piss people off and annoying people working on political BLPs only survive if they are strong on both policy and building coalitions to support their positions. You are good at neither and will quickly become seen as disruptive and unhelpful in the editing process. Then you will get topic banned or blocked or driven off by savvy operators who arr far more influential than you are. Stick to what you have been doing and leave the BLPs until you can argue contentious positions without pissing editors off. Spartaz ''Humbug!'' 22:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

:I took your previous warning seriously. I just wanted my page undeleted, and was very civil about it. No need for this latest teaching moment - I just asked for my page to be undeleted, and had already stopped questioning people’s arguments. You could do the same; be generally more civil, and stop pissing people off on their talk pages and elsewhere. I’ll try be more influential and savvy in future, though I didn’t know being influential as a Wikipedia editor was something to aim for. Your constant negativity that I’m not good at editing is unhelpful. Neither is your frequent condescension, which you seem to be unable to recognise. I can recognise my various mistakes - do the same. The article was well written and sourced, and my logic is generally sound, even if the way I have presented it and gone about it is not. But please now desist from pursuing me. I won’t be discussing this whole matter further, but will continue to improve my draft such that it may be one day ready for a review. Scientelensia (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing ↗ requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).{{pb}} When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary ↗ at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking ↗ to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.{{pb}} Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thank you. 

Hi. You have posted under my draftification proposal at WP:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 16#Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy ↗. I reviewed your edits at Special:PageHistory/Zack Polanski ↗ and found an edit that appears to include copying text ↗ from this version ↗ of {{-r|Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy}}. I provided the missing attribution ↗. If you have copied in other edits, I can help you fix them if you provide diffs. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you so much! Scientelensia (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Your bold edits at Savage Mode II ↗

Please direct your efforts at discussing your changes at the article's talk page rather than reinstating them (WP:BRD ↗). Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:A score of 78 out of 100 doesn't make it "critical acclaim"; it's based on Metacritic, not on opinion (WP:NPOV ↗). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Michael 2023 cover V2.png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Saint Michael 2023 cover V2.png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

<s>25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm LuniZunie. I noticed that you made a comment on the page :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies ↗ that didn't seem very civil ↗, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page ↗. Thank you.</s – LuniZunie(talk) 04:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:As you might see on the talk page for the article, the user in question actually admitted to using another account, if by accident. So my suspicions proved founded, though not useful to carry forward. Wikipedia is built on listening to voices. Thanks, Scientelensia (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::That's not the issue, it's that you are rejecting the voice of someone because they have 5 edits. I do not reject the voice of you just because you have 8x less edits than me, please show the same respect for others that is shown to you. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Haha, nice to quantify the 8x gap! All I was doing is inferring that accounts may have been specifically created (or inadvertently so) to engage in the issue. This is called deduction – in the same way that the deletion user claimed I was using AI – that was their 'deduction' (although in this case, it was incorrect). Scientelensia (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::You are only proving my point by talking down to me like that, I would suggest cutting it out before you dig yourself a hole you can't get out of. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I didn't mean to talk down to you! I might suggest that in your tone, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, and that you also just threatened me. I must say, Wikipedia:LuniZunism ↗ is not being held true to in this case. We have similar concerns here, hostility from either of us is of no use to the project. Scientelensia (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::In 0 way have I threated you. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::"I would suggest cutting it out before you dig yourself a hole you can't get out of." Scientelensia (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::That's not a threat at all, it's telling you what will happen if you continue this path of incivilty. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::In fact, I can see you have a history of this. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok; I apologise for reading it as a threat. With your tone I inferred that conclusion over-hastily. I don't feel a need to look into your history greatly, but I don't have a history for incivility. I did have a mutual, and now-resolved, dispute on Spartaz with incivility on both sides. Scientelensia (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Okay, that's fair enough. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but it has felt like you've been aggressive to me. Though I admit that could be just how you type and me misreading so I apologize for that. Either way, I'm stepping back from this. Happy editing mate. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::You too! No harm was meant on my side either. Scientelensia (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::There was zero reason to comment on the user as a person when the point of a deletion discussion is about if the article should stay. You can take such claims to ANI or SPI, but that is not at all what AfD is for. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:Just as a note I'm leaving this before any further escalation. We'll see what the consensus is. – LuniZunie(talk) 04:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, I think we should leave things here. Just so you know though there is also a related discussion here – Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup Argentinian controversies ↗ Scientelensia (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
</s>

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haissem Hassan ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Zealand national football team ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)