User talk:Lovecel

I've removed the section at Talk:Nazi archaeology where you posted

Besides being utter nonsense. talk pages are not for discussion of the subject of an article. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are no fun. In the future I will simply silently appreciate the schizos I find instead of alerting the languishing gerontocracy to remove them. Someday the iPad babies will inherit this coven and on that day the asylum doors shall never be locked again. LOVECEL ^🤍 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed your latest post. Talkpages aren't fora for your views on archaeology, and you don't get to make personal attacks like the one above. If you do that again, you are liable to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for an article about archeology is not a place to try to find a consensus about the facts of archeology? Seems a little heavy handed to keep deleting discussion instead of debating in the open, especially since not a single person posted disagreeing. Furthermore, what in my post constitutes a personal attack. Not a single aspect of it is an attack on his person. LOVECEL ^🤍 21:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages. Are definitely not a place to find out about the facts of archaeology or to discuss the subject of an article. See WP:NOTFORUM. Doug Weller talk 21:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phew good thing I said "find a consensus" and not "find out about the facts" otherwise that would have been embarrassing! LOVECEL ^🤍 21:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't clutter talkpages with nonsense or personal theories. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: your view is that to ask if there is a consensus when there is a talk page post about the editorial direction of a page without any disagreement is nonsense and a personal theory? I was under the impression collaboration in this way was a key tenet of the encyclopedia, my apologies. In the future I will not use the talk page, and will just assume the extant contents reflect it. LOVECEL ^🤍 22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community's view is that talkpages aren't soapboxes for you to assert that "Official archeology" is fraudulent, "blood sacrifice," or whatever else you wish to assert based on your "100 facts." A little self-awareness might be in order. There is nothing in your posts there that can be construed as consensus-finding or proposals for article improvement based on reliable sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think I revived a decade plus dead talk thread of a schizophrenic guy, with a different account, because I am secretly the original poster? LOVECEL ^🤍 22:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah geez my brains a little slow sorry. For some reason I thought you were attributing what he said to me! Glad we cleared that up sir. Anything else you need from me? LOVECEL ^🤍 22:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

great wiki user Zzendaya (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and fascism

@Lovecel what part of the existing inline sources justify this content you restored [1]? Badbluebus (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, 2021 LOVECEL ^🤍 23:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source [2] makes no mention of japan. Badbluebus (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder or give up LOVECEL ^🤍 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your reply seems to imply that you are trolling instead of trying to build an encyclopedia. If you don't provide a serious answer for that content to stay up, I will have to revert your edit. Badbluebus (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid you have to search a PDF. Do what you must. LOVECEL ^🤍 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched it myself, nothing found. There's a search feature on the page. Please provide a quotation backing your claim. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Your recent editing history at Equal Rights Amendment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Badbluebus (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally fixed it from your feedback. No warfare it's collaborative editing. We are united. LOVECEL ^🤍 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mound Builders. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about I broke existing paragraphs into neutrally titled sub groups which reflected their content. I happen to agree much of what's discussed is pseudo archeology, but it's not about personal opinion, that is not how a neutral encyclopedia talks about the religious beliefs which constitute the majority of the world's population. I give up, you win, I will stop using this website. Your willingness to crush anything I might try to contribute has inspired me to be a more prosocial member of my local community. LOVECEL ^🤍 12:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't claim to be neutral. It's a mainstream encyclopedia. It does not, for instance, treat Creationism neutrally.

Nor does it treat the LDS movement neutrally as it portrays a false history of the world.

I am not trying to crush anything, just enforce our policies and guidelines. I've pointed out other instances of your editing breaking thouse. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. LOVECEL ^🤍 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Where have I done that? If I have, you had better take me to WP:ANI as that's a pretty serious thing for an Admin to do. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Women's suffrage in Utah, you may be blocked from editing. Source does not mention or suggest "Surprisingly" Doug Weller talk 08:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Immigration to Australia. I think this can be called vandalism, you added "employers seeking to keep wages low say" despite it not being in the source and contradicting the source Doug Weller talk 08:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Lovecel! Your additions to Height discrimination have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is paraphrasing the data and results in a public study a copywrite violation? Who am I even supposed to have stolen from here? LOVECEL ^🤍 20:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you only very lightly paraphrased the study, meaning that your addition was close to being identical to the source. You can see the overlap between the source and your edit in the highlighted text here: [3]. It's also important to note that being a "public study" does not mean that the text is compatibly licensed for use on Wikipedia. This particular study has a notice saying "all rights reserved", which means that the copyright and all associated rights have not been released by the owner (which in this case is likely the authors of the study). MCE89 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give an example how what I wrote was anything but an original work reflecting the results of the study LOVECEL ^🤍 20:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to the link that I provided in my reply above. The highlighted text shows sentences that are word-for-word identical to the source. MCE89 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one that says "Violation unlikely" and shows zero full sentences that are word for word identical? LOVECEL ^🤍 20:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences that are identical to the source are [They found that] women were most likely to choose a speed-dater 25 cm taller than themselves, whereas men were most likely to choose women only 7 cm shorter than themselves. As a consequence, matches were most likely at an intermediate height difference (19 cm) that differed significantly from the preferred height difference of both sexes. You can see that those sentences are highlighted in red due to the overlap. MCE89 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources admit he made it up but if you want to perpetuate the credential fraud, may Allah bless LOVECEL ^🤍 04:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the sources say that? Maybe I missed something. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate you can check all the old revisions the consensus is that he lied. The contention is whether he now admits it. Nobody believes he has a degree. LOVECEL ^🤍 18:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Please remove the Hitler gif from your user page per userpage guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little presumptuous to say the existence of a gif is an endorsement. I just like the way they moonwalk. Which specific point do you claim I have violated? What would satisfy the stasi watching my page? LOVECEL ^🤍 03:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When seeing someone posting a Hitler gif, the first thing that comes to the mind of most people isn't "this user must like the way they moonwalk", and you probably knew that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that you are not citing anything so am I free to go officer LOVECEL ^🤍 03:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the trolling mate. Wikipedia has higher standards than other social media sites; if you keep messing around you're likely to be blocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should hate for anyone to misunderstand my intentions, hence why I edited my page to add an alt text disclaimer explaining that I like the moonwalk, even though it seems self evident to me. Once again, if you can point to a specific rule I am violating, or higher standard I am failing to meet, I would be happy to comply. Am I to believe that historical footage of any controversial figure is not allowed on user pages? Out of an abundance of WP:AGF (which has not been shown to me) I will replace the gif with Michael Jackson moonwalking. Perhaps the stasi might then let me be... LOVECEL ^🤍 04:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a test, and you failed, sorry... 🥀 Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing the same thing, at greater length. Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:HID and the above warnings and discussion plus edits like this: [4] [5] [6] indicate you're wasting other editors time here... and your own. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Blackpill

Hello, Lovecel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Blackpill, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 03:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Blackpill

Hello, Lovecel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Blackpill".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]