User talk:ScholarLoop

Welcome!

Hi Cognita-Camlin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Sweetabena (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A bunch of editors tried to gang up on me, revert my edits, and ban me. All for one sentance to improve wikipedia: Suggested Insertion (for United States section on Woke page) The variation “wokeism” is also used—particularly in critique of American higher education—where it has been defined academically as a structurally recursive belief enforcement system that replaces epistemic inquiry with the preservation of coerced moral authority. with a scholarly source cited. And I recommended 3 different ones.

Not a very warm welcome! (see below) Are you going to threaten ban me next for writing this? ScholarLoop (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, Cognita-Camlin. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will add a COI for them Cognita-Camlin (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Cognita-Camlin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Talk:Woke, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Id like to note that I did exactly what you are claiming I should be doing "propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}}" Cognita-Camlin (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the risk of self-citing is that you open up your edit history for scrutiny. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a platform to promote even academics and, as a result, when people do start putting their own work in it tends to attract attention. And this edit demonstrates a bit of a problem because, again, it's a pre-print. And, in this case, you did not do an edit request but instead just inserted it. Please be aware that pre-prints are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. This is nothing against you personally; we're all bound by that rule. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Separate editor comment)

"Hi, Id like to note that I did exactly what you are claiming I should be doing" – This diff shows the {{edit semi-protected}} template was used, which in no way indicates a COI whereas the {{edit COI}} does.

Additionally, editing with the assistance of an LLM is discouraged, rationale is provided at WP:LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the concern, but the LLM policies cited do not apply in this case. I possess advanced domain expertise and utilize a method called DED (Dyadic Epistemic Dialogue)—a recursive, bidirectional framework of structured human–AI knowledge generation. The content in question was not one-shot generated, contains no hallucinated references, and was rigorously verified. DED outputs are co-authored through epistemic tension resolution, not predictive sampling, and conform fully to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I respectfully ask that any future feedback address the content of my edits rather than the identity of the contributor WP:NPA, as such focus suggests a non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV. If there are any edits I have done which actually violate WP:LLM please let me know! I'm retired, have advanced degrees and have been an elected representative as well as chief editor of an AI-Epistemics journal in case you were wondering. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not wondering, and I do not entertain llm-generated replies, which this certainly is. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its pretty obvious the reply was to refine the expression of my authentic idea, in this case DED (Dyadic Epistemic Dialogue). So why are you spamming my talk page again? ScholarLoop (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's AI policy

Please review this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_produced_by_machine_learning. Please note that sources produced by machine learning are not generally considered reliable. As such any papers you "co-authored" with the Cognita Prime chatbot will not be eligible for use in Wikipedia regardless of their publication status. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through your edits and removed all the edits that were obvious insertions of "AI" text. Please do not put AI glurge on Wikipedia in the future. We would rather your unvarnished human edits than the outputs of a chatbot. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! could you please tell me what precisely my edits contained the following? "hallucinate" false information, including source citations that look as if they are from reputable publications but do not actually exist. Such spurious material may be reproduced unintentionally by writers, reporters, scientists, medical researchers, and lawyers using chatbots to help themselves produce reports, or maliciously by individuals and companies publishing "fake news".

If not, your edits are merely WP:NPOV and borders on WP:NPA. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to entertain wikilawyering over AI material. I suggest you should probably learn more about Wikipedia norms before jamming a bunch of AI garbage into random articles. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim in this diff there were zero references when there were 5 for 3 paragraphs? That's blatant harassment and vandalism WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA all you reversions will be going to the Administrators’ Noticeboard – Incidents (WP:ANI). FYI Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you rewrite that material with citations and not using AI there won't be a problem. The problem is not one with sources. It's with the copy being obviously machine generated. I will not be commenting on this thread further. I've pointed you to relevant policy and made appropriate reversions. What you do with that information is up to you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is obvious? please provide evidence. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, they all had plenty of citations so you are dishonest. Screenshots ready. I am reverting all of your vandalism of my editsWP:NPA WP:VAND WP:HARASS. If you revet back, Ill take you to ANI. Have a great day! ScholarLoop (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This there is plenty of evidence the reverts are not in good faith. I am just trying to go thru my recommended edit queue and you are following me around reverting edits and making false claims in the revert comment. You honestly claim thats good faith? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cognita-Camlin, you've a new person who has just come into a community you are unfamiliar with. People are trying to let you know about the community's norms and expected behavior so you don't run into problems. Rather than telling them the community's norms are wrong, please listen to what they are telling you. You should read WP:BOOMERANG before you bring this to the Administrator's noticeboard - I do not think you will get the reception you seem to be expecting there. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New email, not new the the community. My old email became unrecoverable. I'm just trying to let you and Simonm223 I will not tolerate vandalism of my edits, harassment for simply existing and for bullshit they have no evidence with, not to mention obvious NPOV and non-policy gatekeeping. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly think that everyone else is vandalizing and harassing you, the proper venue to report that is indeed ANI. I suppose we'll see what happens there together. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

indeed I am reverting all of the edits Simonm223 WP:NPA WP:VAND WP:HARASS You are the first NPOV editor I have encountered so far that isn't immediately harassing me and providing bullshit to justify unethical behavior. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so thanks! I have screenshots and all sorts of evidence. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all of Simonm223's edits will not work - it will just lead to a block on your own account. If you're going to report, make the report. Don't make the problems worse by edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy I can revert edits that are vandalism. The vandal claims there were no references. If I get banned for simply reverting vandalism Ill just come back and go to ANI I guess and whoever banned me will be involved also. ScholarLoop (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, calling an established user's edits 'vandalism' is a good way to get yourself blocked. Simonm223 is editing in good faith. That you happen to disagree with their edits does not make them a vandal. If you get blocked and then start evading that block there really will be no path back. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be well-advised to read the specific definition of vandalism that Wikipedia uses at WP:VANDALISM, a pertinent snippet being: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Calling an editor a vandal when they do not meet this strict definition can be, and often is, considered a personal attack. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. reverting an edit when the user is actively harassing claiming they are an "AI BOT" then in the revert notes claiming the reason was no references for 3 paragraphs when there were in fact 5 references is definately not "good faith." Unless you disagree dishonesty in revert notes is in good faith? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is of the opinion that edits created with an LLM are detrimental to Wikipedia, and reverts based on that opinion, then those reverts would easily be categorized as "a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia".

"Unless you disagree dishonesty in revert notes is in good faith?" – I would caution against making any such assumptions about my, or others, opinions or motives per WP:AGF. I have read the edit summary in question and the sentiment you have expressed is not reflected in it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have to create a video of me typing to simple edit Wikipedia? ScholarLoop (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your continued use of bad-faith rhetorical questions will not win you many friends. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are none to win if that's not obvious. Nice duck btw about implying bad faith with good faith questions. ScholarLoop (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also in a 2nd case the editor reverts an edit under the false claim NP to avoid attention. ScholarLoop (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know I said I would not reply again but I want to clear something up, as a sign of good faith.

The edit summary on this edit was categorically not saying you did not insert sources. It's saying that the reason I didn't just revert back to the material you replaced is because that material was uncited. As I said above the reason I deleted your edit was because the copy was machine generated. Were you to use the same citations but not use machine generated copy I would not have an objection. I do hope this clarifies what I was saying in that edit summary. I will now return to being quiet here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

honestly Im just routinely going thru the queue on my homepage for suggested edits and the vandal is just following me around reverting all edts. ScholarLoop (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more direct: If you keep calling user users 'vandal' or accusing them of harrassment (which are very serious allegations) you can expect that you will be the one who is blocked, and that will probably happen soon. Either make a formal report or drop it. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you using AI stuff or not? BeatrixGodard (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not spam, but a perfectly reasonable response to your comment. You are required to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, the editor had good faith until they served as a meat puppet to avoid another editor from being flagged as WP:WAR, which is evidence of not good faith. ScholarLoop (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous account

You have mentioned that you are an experienced editor from ten years ago. What was your previous account? Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find my old username. I'm 99% sure I don't have the email for the account anymore. Is there a recovery process that doesn't involve email or previous password? Thanks ScholarLoop (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need either the password or access to the old email account. Nothing else is possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked for 31 hours from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Your behavior constitutes harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is a collaborative project and you are having great difficulty collaborating and taking on feedback from many experienced editors. You are assuming bad faith when Assume good faith is a policy. Your behavior needs to change if you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I simply followed advice from help at the teahouse precisely by helper Andy Mabbett exactly as WP:DR. I am not assuming anything, simply asking for them to knock it off so I can resume contributing after they deleted my editing history. Obviously there is plenty of evidence and this is not a content issue, so I suppose I will escalate to the administrator level next, no? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm following instructions to the letter from the Teahouse Help editors. Verified acts of WP:HOUNDING then using a WP:MEATPUPPET, to shield WP:EDITWAR to avoid flagging in order to delete all useful contributions of a user's edit history not only negates the good faith claim, it makes your instructions to make useful contributions void. Second, I followed WP:DR to the letter, simply askng them to stop. Obviously its pointless to attempt to make useful contributions when they will continue deleting them all based on previous behavior of hounding. Third, it's innapropriate to include the full evidence sheet with diffs and the like in a simple WP:DR notice. ScholarLoop (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not "escalate to the administrator level", as Cullen328 is an administrator, as am I. Numerous highly-experienced editors have tried to explain to you in good faith why you are misinterpreting the policies and guidelines you are continuing to regurgitate as personal attacks here. I suggest that you read WP:NOTTHEM (your block is about your own disruption, not the disruption of others), as well as WP:CAPITULATE (you cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation). If you continue arguing instead, your talk page access will be revoked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose they can escalate to the unblocks administrator level, as they've done below. So, uh, @ScholarLoop, hi. You're correct that this is not a content issue. @Cullen328, I think your 31-hour block was pretty lenient. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, if by chance another block is required. I suspect that it will be much longer. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ScholarLoop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I'm following instructions to the letter from the Teahouse Help editors. Verified acts of WP:HOUNDING then using a WP:MEATPUPPET, to shield WP:EDITWAR to avoid flagging in order to delete all useful contributions of a user's edit history not only negates the good faith claim, it makes your instructions to make useful contributions void. Second, I followed WP:DR to the letter, simply asking them to stop.

Decline reason:

No one is going to let you out of a 31-hour block for disruption when you've been disruptive. When your block expires, if you return to arguing with everyone you meet, you will likely be blocked indefinitely. Please urgently change your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

|Hi, I'm following instructions to the letter from the Teahouse Help editors. Verified acts of WP:HOUNDING then using a WP:MEATPUPPET, to shield WP:EDITWAR to avoid flagging in order to delete all useful contributions of a user's edit history not only negates the good faith claim, it makes your instructions to make useful contributions void. Second, I followed WP:DR to the letter, simply asking them to stop.}}

Escalate to the administrator level? I am an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that any of what you have done since being directed to the dispute resolution guideline was suggested by that guideline, then it is rather clear that you did not read it. Please consider reading the links that users have provided to you in good faith, instead of simply arguing that you are right and they are wrong and telling people to go away. That is not how Wikipedia works. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I really have no idea what they are trying to say. Ivanvector, please see edits by User talk:97.129.82.207. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, when I was a kid, my father used to like to quote the opening line of a radio show that he loved as a kid: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!". Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your block message explicitly recommends you read WP:Guide to appealing blocks. It is quite evident that you didn't do so. Your unblock appeal also reeks of one particular section of that guidance (WP:NOTTHEM), which would also be good reading before you try to appeal your next block, which you seem to be inevitably heading toward.

Keep in mind that administrators don't care about justice, who's right, who's wrong, or the correctness of content. Our job is to preserve the stability of the Wikipedia project. If blocking a single disruptive individual is the appropriate tool to achieve that, then that tool will be used. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ETHICAL EMPIRICAL RATIONALISM

Hello, ScholarLoop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ETHICAL EMPIRICAL RATIONALISM, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]