User talk:The way, the truth, and the light/Archive1

shitting

Mind telling me why you changed the redirect? TheBlazikenMaster 13:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it because I don't think a profanity needs to redirect to the literal meaning - Fucking does not go to Sexual intercourse. Generally different grammatical forms of a term should reach the same page, which is shit. Also, it eliminates the need for the hatnote at Defecation and should reduce vandalism to that page, whereas shit is semi-protected. The way, the truth, and the light 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR

You have already violated 3rr, you made 4 reverts within 24 hours. Please revert yourself back, before making any other edits, otherwise which you will be reported. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

2 week block

I have blocked you for 2 weeks for edit warring and violating 3RR on Sexual intercourse.

In the past six months, you have garnered five other blocks for edit warring, 3RR violations, and disruption. These blocks were for 24, 24, 48, 72 hours, and 1 week, respectively. I have therefore doubled the length of the last block you received. I think you can anticipate that this trend will continue. I urge you to change your behavior. Nandesuka 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your email

• I can't respond directly to your email, as it appears to be invalid (the domain is localhost.localdomain...not sure what happened there). Anyway, I had nothing to do with your recent block other than noting that you were in danger of 3RR in one of my edit summaries. I did not ask or suggest to anyone directly that they block you. That said, I don't disagree with Nandesuka's block, given your history of tendentious edits and edit warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• I received your email. The matter in page Sexual intercourse that was the subject of the revert war, seems acceptable to me. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution about how to get Wikipedia disputes resolved. Anthony Appleyard 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• WP:RM is Wikipedia:Requested moves. But what you seem to be wanting is not a move but a split. Or what? Best if you wait until your block period is over and then start a discussion section in page Talk:Sexual intercourse. Anthony Appleyard 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Your Anus

I have nominated Your Anus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not make men's rights the equivalent of women's rights?

Hello. I'm wondering about this edit, where you undid the anon IP's changing of the first sentence to match women's rights. Both statements are unsourced; what is the harm in men having the same definition of gender-specific rights than women? Is it that you disagree with both statements but only got around to editing men's rights? Or do you believe men and women's rights are defined differently? Thanks for any response. Blackworm (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxy-fuel

I have nominated Oxy-fuel, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxy-fuel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it sounded like a product, no offense intended. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 10:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Edits like this appear to fall far short of Wikipedia's standards on civility. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-toilet1‎

Template:Uw-toilet1‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-toilet2‎

Template:Uw-toilet2‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Toilet

Wikipedia:Toilet, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Toilet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Toilet during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate links

Please do not link articles to userspace pages as you did here. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikiproject physics

I have nominated Wikiproject physics, a redirect you created, for deletion, for reasons explained here. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page. Thank you for your time. 68.248.228.138 (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over page Atomic hydrogen

• To try to stop this dispute, please see Talk:Atomic hydrogen#Merge with page Hydrogen?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits on editing by admins: prank phone call number posting

As an administrator, I could and did delete the phone number I found in the userpages of 3 users, where they had the same text encouraging prank phone calls. You could just as easily have edited the pages and warned the users. But users have fairly broad ability to decide what is on their userpage, and I had not previously found it necessary to remove objectionable material from some else's userpage. (I'm not even sure what exact policy would forbid it, but there should be one). I have no ability to delete anything from history. Others who monitor the Administrators' noticeboard do have that "oversight" authority and someone removed old versions of User:Supernatural3's userpage which dated from before I did an edit to remove the phone numbers. I found the first problematic userpage, of Supernatural3 at 15:32, the second at 16:53 and the third at 16:58. At 1720 I posted on the Admin noticeboard that I had deleted the numbers from all 3 pages and had warned the users against re-posting them. Then at 18:26 you posted on my userpage your criticism of my actions for not exercising an oversight authority I do not have. Please feel free to contact Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to get Wikipedia:Revision hiding done to remove the history before my cleanup edit from User:Bryanwood343 and User:Specialwolf as someone with oversight authority already did at User:Supernatural3. Wikipedia is a great websight for people such as yourself to get involved to make improvements rather than sitting back and criticizing others who actually do the cleanup work. Edison (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post at the Administrators' noticeboard. The three userpages have been consigned to the dustbin of Wikipedia and the target phone numbers are no longer posted. Edison (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrambling your account

It means choosing a random string of characters as your password, and not writing it down anywhere. Since Wikipedia has no password recovery functionality, that prevents you from ever logging in again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

You fundamentally changed this page, substituting the text of the main page for it, here. This may have been accidental, but if intentional would be regarded as vandalism. Please take care when editing. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was an accident, sorry. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Real social dynamics

Do not re-add this speedy deletion tag. The article does not meet the criterion listed, and will not be deleted for it. You are approaching 3rr, and will be blocked if you violate it. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. But for future reference, please be advised that any editor, except the author of the article, may remove a speedy delete tag. I did not make mention that I was an administrator because, as I just noted, I do not need to be one to remove a speedy delete tag, and I did not want to appear as if I was "throwing my weight around" as an administrator. At any rate, you merely needed to see my userpage to see that I am administrator. I also encourage you to assume good faith — immediately assuming that I am associated with the company and have devious intentions to include the article is a gross violation of assuming good faith. Considering you did not even look at my userpage, (because if you had, you would have seen that I am an administrator) I think you should be doing a bit more research into people before making such baseless accusations. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your edits

Having separate articles for Group number of lanthanides and actinides and Group 3 element was a consensus solution to an unusual problem involving different representations and ideas about the Periodic Table. Before redirecting articles, you may want to take a look at the article talk page, and contribute your redirect idea there. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your accusations. I don't see any consensus on the talk pages; no one other than you specifically commented on it. Finally, the two articles contain exactly the same text almost entirely and there can be no justification for that. I'll take it to AfD if you keep reverting. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? People of good will need to do what they think is best for the encyclopedia. If you think a redirect is best and I think it isn't then we can pose our arguments on the talk page and try to achieve consensus by asking other editors. I don't understand your comment: "I will take it to AfD if you keep reverting." Please do take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted, regardless of whether I keep reverting or not. Also, please review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/archive03#Group_3 Flying Jazz (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That thread is again irrelevant to the existence of your article. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My previous post here on your user talk page was not meant to address the existence of the article. It was meant to address your style of interaction with a community of editors who have a long history of problem-solving and consensus-building. When you write "I'll take it to AfD if you keep reverting" and refer to an article as "your article," you seem to reveal an apparent goal of personalizing editing disputes. I only think of threats to do something as being threatening when I may feel a personal sense of loss, and I only think of things as being mine when I have control over them, so when you write those sorts of things here, it only makes me shake my head, laugh a little, and wonder why you think I care so much. Anyway, I think that matters relating to the article are best discussed on the article talk page or relevant project pages, and I think that matters relating to the actions of editors on Wikipedia are best discussed on their User talk pages. In an ideal situation, information on Wikipedia would always be discussed in a detached and rational fashion. Would you like to help situations at Wikipedia grow a little more ideal? Flying Jazz (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to warn vandals after reverting them

Sorry, I do not quite follow you when you said "the vandalism was old" [1] as the edit you reverted on Naked had been added just 38 minutes prior [2]. If we do not warn the vandals, how will they ever know to stop? Additionally, since vandals may only be blocked after having received a series of properly escalated warnings, not warning the vandals just lets them get away with their vandalism that much longer.

Looking at your edit history, I see that in the past five days you have reverted approximately 63 instances of vandalism, but only issued about nine warnings to IP addresses. Why would the Wikipedia community invest you with additional anti-vandalism tools (such as rollback) when you "don't want to waste time" [3] by issuing warnings using the tools you already have? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Would you please explain your recent page move? GDonato (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was testing. I saw the 'move' button in the toolbar and wanted to know whether I could move the talk page of a move-protected page. I was going to, if it worked, immediately revert the move and then notify someone about the defect.

I was just about to move it back when you apparently blocked me. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you triggered a page move vandal alert on IRC which is the reason why you were blocked. Tests such as these should not be carried out in future, use some form of sandbox. Unblocked. GDonato (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL trout smack. I've seen you around anyway, no harm done, well, the harm that was done has been undone, so lets all forget about it...-193.120.116.179 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71

Hi TWTTATL, yes, User:DavidYork71 is the original puppetmaster for the Fraudexposr account. See the deleted article autosodomy. Best, Gwernol 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing on WP:AN

The Administrator's Noticeboard is not the appropriate venue for your comment. I have removed it. If you want to re-add it, please do so in your userspace. Nakon 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sexist remarks are unwelcome here

Take the good advice that you were offered at WP:AN/I and accept that demanding apologies for six-month-old slights is not a productive use of time, and that even if it were AN/I would not be the appropriate venue. If you post anything more on Nakon's talk page that isn't an apology for your conduct there (an accusation of censorship [4], followed by a sexist remark [5]) then you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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. SQL^{Query 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. SQL^{Query me!} 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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 [6] 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)

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)

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)

Blocked

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 prevent 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)

Help! I'm agreeing with Fall down! I know that's the way you do things, but I see no real reason that indef-blocked users should be kept from making good contributions. --The Resistor 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Help! I'm also agreeing! (I was once a vandal...) 4 T C 11:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I acknowledge the above statements of support. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Crap (word)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crap (word). Since you had some involvement with the Crap (word) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that discussion in the archives, and the link in the history of that page is broken. No doubt no malice was intended here, but that's something strange! The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Up the butt" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Up the butt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#Up the butt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"In the butt" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect In the butt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#In the butt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)