User talk:The way, the truth, and the light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: Archive 0, Archive 1

Archive: Homosexual agenda dispute

Contents

[edit] Idly curious

Idly curious, what's up with this:

17:13, April 26, 2008 The way, the truth, and the light (Talk | contribs | block) moved Talk:Penis to Talk:Penissssssssssssssss ‎ (revert)

Thought I'd ask. SQLQuery me! 06:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a test, see above User:The way, the truth, and the light#Page move. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OIC, very sorry to bug you then... I didn't realize that was about the same. SQLQuery me! 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFPP

Hey, I don't think we've ever interacted before, and I wanted to chat about your semi-protection request at RFPP a minute ago. There are a lot of different admins who work at RFPP, most of which probably have no history with you personally. The semi you requested was pretty uncontroversial, so your comments about 3RR did more to confuse a cut and dry semi request than anything else. They also felt like an assumption of bad faith against sysops, and that feeling certainly doesn't help me make a decision about the merits of a protection request. I'm sure you probably have had honestly poor interactions with some admins before, god knows I certainly have come across patently rude ones, but there are more than 1500 of us. Try not to paint us all with the same brush, and I'll do my best to help you how I can. Thanks, VanTucky 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't sure that that sort of thing warranted protection. The reason for those comments atbout 3RR was my block last year, during several of which I was told basically that there wasno excuse at all for violating 3RR and that I would be automatically blocked if I did with each block being longer than the last. When I look at the 3RR board, though, I see plently of people get off for various reasons, so I can't help but think there must be something having to do with me. So, I was angry that I might face a month-long block for reverting this and that was the reason for my comment in the protection request. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an obvious misjudgment on the part of the blocking admin to me. If you honestly thought something was vandalism and not a good faith contribution, I'm of the impression that it warrants some mercy when it comes to 3RR. I personally know what it's like to be blocked for 3RR, and it's best to try and not harbor resentments. Best regards, VanTucky 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What blocking admin? I wasn't referring to any particular block. Also, I didn't think this contribution [1] was actually vandalism, and so it might not be considered an exception to 3RR (and as stated above, I have reason to believe admins will construe it as broadly as possible when I'm the offender), although it probably should be - since it is clearly inappropriate just as if it were vandalism or spam. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you meant you were literally just blocked in response to the RFPP request. My mistake. VanTucky 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February

Hi, I've just seen this. My apologies. I was using the "search" button to find common misspellings, and I may have corrected some of them too hastily without reading the whole extract for context. (In most cases, I think, I did read the context.) It was dumb of me. Thanks for fixing it. Ashton1983 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen

Good day. Please add sources to the Mono-Atomic section of Hydrogen. No one else is going to do it because, quite frankly, you're the only one who wants it included in the article. I don't particularly care one way or the other about the content itself - if you can find good sources to back it up, I'll be a happy clam. If not, the content will be moved back to its original article - which should have happened anyway, seeing as there was no discussion about the merger. One way or the other, something must change. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Who ordered 137? (talk • contribs • block log • [http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html).  As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

This account has been blocked, as you freely admitted to me via email that you are also User:Who ordered 137? and User:The Mind is my country. Using multiple accounts to edit and/or evade blocks is unacceptable, and given this account's history of disruption, a block is certainly justified.

You should know that as a general rule, I will not respond to blocked users via email. So that all administrators know what is going on, I refuse to handle any unblocks in private and will make replies here. I did respond to your previous email, on both user talk pages of your other accounts. I blocked email on "The Mind is my country" because you claimed you had created that account specifically for the purpose of using email, a deliberate attempt to avoid the terms of your previous block. Abusing multiple accounts to avoid a block is against policy, as you have already been informed. If you wish to be unblocked, please stop sending me emails: it is a waste of your time, because I'm just going to reply here anyway.

You should also be aware that any block placed on your IP address is likely causes by the autoblocker, an automated system that will block any IP address used by a blocked account. This is placed to prevent users from circumventing their blocks, and done automatically. It is standard procedure to leave this system enabled for almost all block reasons.

You stated in your email that you had apologized several times for your past acts of vandalism. While that may be the case, you have continued to act in contravention of policy and in a manner that only necessitates the need to continue to block you. No block is ever placed, as you claim, "to humiliate you personally." Blocks are placed in order to protect Wikipedia against needless disruption such as you have caused; they are not punitive in any way, but preventative. In the event you can demonstrate you fully understand our policies and will not abuse them again, you may be unblocked. However, your continuing violations make this increasingly unlikely.

Should you wish to contest this block, you may provide a reason for doing so by adding {{unblock|<reason>}} below this message. Please note that abuse of the template will result in your talk page being protected. Administrators will review their block, and, at their discretion, accept or decline each request based on the blocking policy and other relevant policies. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I'd forgotten the IP addresses you mentioned were hardblocked directly by a checkuser. You will need to mention those in your unblock request to have them unblocked.
Also, to administrators, anybody wishing to view a copy of the emails I have received may contact me for further information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Using multiple accounts is not prohibited, and I did not use them to violate policy except for that one act of vandalism which I have already admitted to. The blocks of me do not prevetn any additional disruption; if I wanted to, I could vandalize again from public computers, as I did. They only prevent legitimate edits, which is why they can't be considered "preventive". The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Using multiple accounts to evade blocks is prohibited, and they make additional disruption more difficult. It is impossible to prevent disruption, as there are more open proxies than we are aware of. I don't recall whether you have been disruptive, but you've certainly been annoying. I'm not sure I would call the errors you've been inserting into Wikipedia articles "vandalism", as you may believe your statements to be correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't used multiple accounts to evade blocks, except for User:The Mind is my country, which was only used for e-mail, not for editing. Of course, that policy is completely silly: it would prevent anyone indef-blocked as a vandal from ever editing again, and I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here are former vandals. The argument about disruption is meaningless in general, yes, but for me it is relevant given my history of thousands of good-faith edits.
I don't know what you mean by the 'errors' I've put in Wikipedia articles. I've never adding anything I know to be false. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You said "it would prevent anyone indef-blocked as a vandal from ever editing again"' ... and that is completely correct. Why would the Wikipedia community ever want a vandal -or for that matter, any other variety of disruptive editor- back? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they are capable of constructive edits, of course. Maybe you should read what I wrote. As far as my own case, I don't need you to trust me, my contribution history shows that I am not 'a vandal'. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)