User talk:Southernhemisphere

Hello, Southernhemisphere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Multinskoe Lake, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Multinskoe Lake".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Anatol Smorodintsev, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anatol Smorodintsev, 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) 09:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Southernhemisphere -- Thanks for contributing the article on this fascinating building -- I really learned something. I had to edit it a bit to take it further away from the sources in order to be able to accept it. It's important to write everything in your own words, rather than just cutting and pasting from the source, even for short fragments. The only things that you can copy directly are titles and quotations. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethics of simulated suffering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics of simulated suffering until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Center on Long-Term Risk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent coverage to suggest notability beyond self-published and sources connected to the topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southernhemisphere,

I just wanted to suggest that when you can, online newspaper articles are usually preferred to research papers or self-published sources. See WP:Reliable sources for more details. Google News is quite practical in this regard. I also suggest familiarizing yourself with the WP:Notability criteria for creating new articles, because notability is usually the main reason why new articles get deleted. Happy editing. Alenoach (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here are some examples of good secondary sources that may cover your topics of interest, in case it can help:

• The grim fate that could be ‘worse than extinction’ (BBC)
• Sim ethics (Aeon)
• AI Should Be Terrified of Humans (Time)

Sources from mainstream news websites like Time or BBC show notability and make your contributions more likely to last. Books can also be good sources (ideally with a page number or excerpt in the reference). Research papers can be ok to use, but are often considered primary sources and thus not ideal. Websites like longtermism.com or forum.effectivealtruism.org, although high-quality in practice, could be considered self-published source and may be dismissed by other contributors. Alenoach (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Digital immortality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Pearce. 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) 07:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Body modification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biohacking.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southernhemisphere. Thank you for your work on Negative hedonism. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page. It looks like you might have translated this from the French article without acknoweldgement; it's important to do this in order to recognize the work put in by others. You can learn more about this at Help:Translation. The page also relies on web sources, and would benefit from peer-reviewed (reliable) sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere,

Thank you for creating Moral weight.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The key concern here is that the sources are self-published blogs and websites, so the notability of the topic is hard to assess. It seems like a vehicle for animal rights organizations to implement their policies or make reasoned arguments.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southernhemisphere. Thank you for your work on Satisfaction paradox. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page for a psychological concept. There are sufficient reliable sources to warrant this as a page, although some of the sources (such as that to Research gate or linked in) aren't demonstrably reliable sources (the Researchgate article isn't linked to a peer-reviewed publication, for example). I also wonder whether this a synonym for the "paradox of well-being", which perhaps has even more use and so literature using this concept could be used to expand this page. Remember also that linking from other pages ensures that this content will be found by readers.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited End-of-life ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydration.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Southernhemisphere, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Pain-free consciousness, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain-free consciousness.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suffering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emotional granularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calm.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. Just to clarify, the article didn’t exist before — I created it under a title that was previously a redirect to a related article. Southernhemisphere (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created it twice, actually. Also, it shouldn't have been created once, nor recreated. It's not notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VRC is a significant concept in population ethics. It's relevant to debates in longtermism, effective altruism, and AI ethics. Though relatively new, it has academic presence and philosophical importance that could at least justify a stub. I'll make an effort though, to provide more sources. Southernhemisphere (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Negative hedonistic utilitarianism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero reliable sources to establish the notability concept

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southernhemisphere. I also don't think it warrants a separate article from negative utilitarianism. Please familiarize yourself with the Notability and the Reliable sources guidelines, and you will get much less of your content removed. Some topics are not notable enough for a standalone article. Improving existing articles may also be worth your time, as they make more views than new articles on niche topics.

Since you seem interested in philosophy, sources like the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy can be useful. Google News can also be useful, since the articles it shows are often ones that are acceptable on Wikipedia. Alenoach (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alenoach, thank you for taking the time to write such a helpful message. You're right that improving existing articles can often have a bigger impact, and I’ll keep that in mind going forward. Also, thanks for the tip about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the IEP. Looking forward to contributing in a more effective way. Cheers! Southernhemisphere (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that self-published sources like LessWrong should in general be avoided on Wikipedia, because anyone can publish a post without being peer-reviewed. Here is also a document assessing the reliability of many media sources: WP:RSPLIST. Have a good day. Alenoach (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Darwinian hedonism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychological hedonism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Suffering in simulations. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the sources used do not appear to be suitable for use on Wikipedia. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Comparative suffering, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tranquilism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tranquilism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Psychastes (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lexical order (ethics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beneficence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inner alignment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner alignment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Elestrophe (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any kind of WP:COI for Rick Doblin? If so, please be aware of that guideline. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation is unfounded. Btw why is the controversy section disproportionaly large? In any case, that section should go to the MAPS article. The article about Rick Doblin already had a controversy section. Don't you think a disproportionally large one is vandalism? including a section with sexual assault in the title. Southernhemisphere (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make no accusation, but thank you for the reassurance. There are problems with the article I agree, but it's not really vandalism. Happy to continue discussion at Talk:Rick Doblin. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. Bon courage (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Southernhemisphere. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 4 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge that I used multiple accounts and understand that this violated Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. While my intention was not to deceive or disrupt, I now see that doing so undermines transparency and trust in the editing process. I regret this and am committed to editing in good faith, using only one account going forward. I want to contribute constructively, especially in areas where I have interest. I respectfully ask for a second chance to do so in line with community norms. Southernhemisphere (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm glad that the AI didn't intend to deceive us(100% certain according to zeroGPT), but we don't want to hear from an AI, we want to hear from you directly as only you can tell us what is inside your mind. Please write in your own words without the aid of an AI. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 5 July 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.

"While my intention was not to deceive or disrupt" ← LOL. With an edit summary like "The article already looked good at this stage" to revert to your own text, you certainly did intend to deceive. Being in denial about it suggests an unblock would be unwise. Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in from the AI Cleanup crew to point out that this user likely used LLMs to generate many of their edits as well. Their original copy of the Abundance denial page reeks of LLM prose. If unblocking this person is considered again, the admin in question should evaluate as well this person's propensity for LLM use. Altoids0 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Outer alignment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Abundance denial. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and the article appears to have poor text–source integrity, for example, the Washington (2015) and Washington and Kopnina (2022) sources cited do not appear to verify the claims they are used to support (or even discuss this specific topic at all, as opposed to other denial). I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Comparative suffering. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Suffering in simulations. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Moral weight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject is largely only referenced in self-published sources and does not reflect the way this term is used in peer-reviewed literature (where it is barely used at all). Therefore, falls under WP:NEOLOGISM; all sourcing is WP:PRIMARY at best.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Reconrabbit 16:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Mesa-optimization. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Abundance denial, 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) 06:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Southernhemisphere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Suffering in simulations, 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) 21:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]