User talk:TrueCRaysball/Archive/2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 →

Jun. 2007 - Jul. 2007

The Image

Hornetman16: from one Christian to another, you really need to another you really need to get a cool head about this issue of the image. I agree with your personal objection, however you need to realize that it is simply a personal objection. You're sounding like a ranting child. I'm sure that you're much more mature then that, but at the moment, you're not really showing it all that well. Take a moment, pray about how your witness is being displayed to these people. You're not showing a righteous indignation. You're just throwing a tantrum. And your user page very clearly displays your faith, however your action simply makes you appear to be a religious nut instead of a man filled with the fruits of the spirit. Look'em up and check your spirit on this issue. Just my thoughts. Blessings Tiggerjay 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right but it's not just a matter of my personal objection (that picture's gotten me in trouble with my mom because I'm 16 if you know what I mean) it's also a matter that God's telling I should get it deleted!-- Hornetman16 06:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there is probably a better way to go about it. :) Tiggerjay 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

HOW?!-- Hornetman16 06:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am also a Christian (albeit a more liberal one), and understand your moral objections. However, even Christians may disagree on details that may both agree with the Bible, and your method of trying to show me your side of the debate is getting extremely tiresome. —Kurykh 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What do I need to do to get it deleted?-- Hornetman16 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to convince the community, calmly and rationally, and without alluding to religious belief, that the image should be deleted. And from my point of view, this image shouldn't be deleted, as I really cannot see a religious objection to the picture, only a moral one. Morality and religion are not always one and the same. However, let us leave out that discussion for a more proper place. But do follow the advice as laid out in the first sentence. —Kurykh 06:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I'll see if I find a way to use it.-- Hornetman16 06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And it is interesting to note that I was born in the same year as you. —Kurykh 06:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NLT. Legal threats will get you blocked. Corvus cornix 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Read my Talk Page archive and you'll see that they already told me!-- Hornetman16 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet you choose to ignore it. That's not very smart. Please step up your act, or you will be blocked for disruption. Riana (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - your userpage reveals considerable personal information about yourself. As a minor, you should be more careful. If you like, I can delete it for you and you can start from scratch with less revealing information. Riana (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things:1.I did list I calmed down after words just look at the time stamps. 2.I like my user page the way it is!-- Hornetman16 17:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16 - While I believe you are well intentioned, I think you may need to recheck yourself. Please spend some time checking out Michelangelo which has done plenty of art for the church. Plenty of nudes and images of children. I'm certain that you will find plenty of his books, along with other nude and even nude children pictures at your local bookstore - perhaps even at your high school. I'm not certain you can describe for me the difference between these nude images in the books and this image in question. Tiggerjay 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's Not Child porn because it's not a real child!-- Hornetman16 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16 -- we are all trying to help you out here, however you are as strong headed as those you oppose. Your failure to evaluate your motives and approach, along with your failure to understand the rules as they pertain to Wikipedia have put you in a very negative place with the admins; as evidenced by your current blocks. This strongheadedness will get you very little in life. Sit down, talk with your approach with your pastor, or youth pastor and then come back after church on Sunday. If your attitude hasn't changed, all of these people who are trying to help will likely write you off and the admins may extended longer or permanent blocks. Really, we're trying to help you. Tiggerjay 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then help me get that photo deleted!-- Hornetman16 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the opinions of one editor does not trump community consensus. If you truly want that imaged deleted, you will have to explain clearly, without making references to your personal opinion, religion, legality or family, why you believe it should be deleted. Be careful to avoid these arguments, while citing policies that can support you in your argument. I hope this gives you a bit more insight to how we handle deletion debates. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi Hornetman16, I've deleted your userpage. If you want to know why, I can send you a private e-mail, I'd rather not discuss the reasons too much in public. Please know that I am doing this with regards for your well-being, and no other reasons. Best regards, Riana (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My parents okayedit and that's all that matter's now put it back!!!!-- Hornetman16 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your parents are not Wikipedia editors or admins and do not trump WP:NOT and WP:USER. --Core desat 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my userpage it was the way I want it. My parents have athourity over me more than any of you! NOW PUT IT BACK!!!!-- Hornetman16 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, actually. At least not on Wikipedia. —Kurykh 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite that she didn't have my permission to delete it I want it put back!-- Hornetman16 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Everything is permissible" —but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" — but not everything is constructive. — 1 Corinthians 10:23 —Kurykh 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I spend days putting that userpage togeth to get it the way I want it. And they deleted it *crys*! All I want is it put back the way it was!!! I violated not rules *sobs* just put it back!-- Hornetman16 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can have it back with anything taken out that might put you or others in danger of being identified in real life. When you're of age, you can make decisions as to whether or not you want to give that information (though I'd recommend against it). While you're underage, it's just not allowed. ElinorD (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was done so for your safety. How about let me fix it up and then put it back up for you? It might take a few hours though... —Kurykh 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever just put it back *crys*!!!-- Hornetman16 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So is that a yes? —Kurykh 18:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OF COURSE.-- Hornetman16 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Revealing a large amount of personal information on the internet is not something to be done without considering the consequences, especially when you are a minor. The internet is not a safe place. Sean William @ 19:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I Considered it!--19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for your continued incivility and disruption at the IFD. When the block expires, please come back with a cooler head. --Core desat 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm moraly right not Hot Headed!-- Hornetman16 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman, while you're blocked, take a moment to checkout morality and understand that your morals are different that other people, cultures and religions. Wikipedia strives to be free from this form of bias. In some cultures, the fact that you eat bacon or hamburgers is morally wrong since they effectively worship the cow or pig. Tiggerjay 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat, thank you - I'm in agreement with you. Not that you need kudos or strokes, it's nice to get positive feedback sometimes. :) Tiggerjay 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you block big nole for personally attacking me!-- Hornetman16 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't personally attack you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then What do you call it?-- Hornetman16 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was a personal attack? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW - I'm adding the block boilerplate message here, so you know how to proceed if you wish to request unblock - Alison ☺ 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

They blocked me because I was fighting for what I believe, and what happened to free speach?

Decline reason:

First and foremost, you were blocked for being disruptive on the IFD page (making multiple "votes", making vague legal threats, et cetera). The block was instantiated to give you a bit of time to cool down, collect your thoughts, and attempt to return to civil discussion with us. I know you feel strongly about your parents and your religion, but on Wikipedia neither of those have any say-so in what we do. In regards to your userpage, we deleted it because it contained personally identifiable information which we feel is inappropriate for minors to post on the internet. I am currently working on clearing out the private information and will repost it soon. I suggest you calmly wait our your block (do not continually repost this template, or the blocks may increase in length), as it is only for 12 hours. All the best, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

As God as my witness I WILL get that photo deleted!!!-- Hornetman16 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you at least reduce it cause 12 hours seems a bit extreme.-- Hornetman16 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a privately owned website, that is editable by the public. The US laws on free speech do not apply. --Deskana (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof?-- Hornetman16 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, ignore my advice. You'll just get blocked again. That's the last time I try to help you. I don't much appreciate having my guidance thrown back in my face. --Deskana (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't throwing it back in your face I just wanted proof the the US Constitution doesn't apply here. Sorry if I offended you.-- Hornetman16 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, they do not have to allow the public to edit, nor do they have a legal obligation to let anyone say what they want. Free speech isn't a right on a privately owned website, as the decision to even let anyone edit is their choice. That's just a fact. --Deskana (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If User:72.184.88.30 is you, you are not allowed to edit while blocked. Evading your block is grounds to have your block extended. --Deskana (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't even edit my own userpage? That's ridiculous!-- Hornetman16 19:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are the rules. --Deskana (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That rule needs to change to where you can only edit your userpage when blocked.-- Hornetman16 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't dictate policy. All this arguing that you're doing isn't painting you in a good light. --Deskana (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I can't believe you just did that!! And you commented in the IfD again??? BTW - your IP block just got reset to 12 hours starting from now. Please don't do that again. - Alison ☺ 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Hi. I reposted your userpage as I said I would. I took the effort to clean out the personally identifiable information (last name, age, state you're from, what school you go to, email address, screen name). Basically the most anyone knows about you now is your first name, that you're from the US, and you're a teenage. I think this allows us to let you retain your personality without potentially endangering you. Please try to understand that we're doing it for your own safety. We don't want to do this kind of things, but we've had people on the site threatened in real life (just the other day in fact!) and we don't want to risk the same thing happening to someone who's younger. So take care, and let me know if I can do anything else for you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least give me the link to my pictures that I uploaded since they're mine?-- Hornetman16 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They've all been deleted. When I redid your userpage, I removed them since they were no longer existed and showed red links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish You could make it to where I could edit my user page while blocked.-- Hornetman16 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't keep asking different people until you get what you want. --Deskana (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible. When a user is blocked, the only page they can edit is their own talkpage. We're not being mean, it's just how the software is written. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your actions

Look, your actions are getting way out of line. We are all trying to help you here, and all you have done is pine and pout. I'm trying to get you acquainted to Wikipedia, and you give me this childish attitude? Let me tell you right here right now that even though I am ready to assume that you are acting out of your best intentions, I, and everyone else here, will not be hesitant in indefinitely blocking you from editing Wikipedia if you continue disrupting it with your blind ranting, removal of others comments, and other childish antics. Consider this a formal warning from your fellow teenage Christian. —Kurykh 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my actions. And I'm ready to act like a Christian Teen sjould so can I be unblocked?-- Hornetman16 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If 1) you pledge that you will not engage with further disruption, 2) if the blocking admin assents to unblocking, and 3) respect and follow whatever conditions that the blocking admin or the Wikipedia community imposes. I can act as your negotiator if you wish. —Kurykh 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I pledge and will you?-- Hornetman16 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Will I pledge to what? —Kurykh 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking youto pledge I was saying I pledge I won't create mor touble and I wa asking if you would negotiate for me.-- Hornetman16

Oh, I see. Sure. —Kurykh 22:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How long could this take?-- Hornetman16 22:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how long it takes the blocking admin to answer. —Kurykh 22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout on average?-- Hornetman16 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere from immediately to hours. It depends on the blocking admin's online and editing patterns. —Kurykh 22:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per the guideline WP:AGF, you and your IP have been unblocked. However, please keep in mind the advice other editors have given you here, and present your arguments in a more civil tone. Failure to do so could lead to re-blocking later, but hopefully that won't have to happen. --Core desat 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For concern-- Hornetman16 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Four of the images you were using in your navbar at the top of all your pages are copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, and should not be used in the userspace. As such I have replaced them with example images. I suggest you look around other peopels userpages to find some icon images you can uuse. Viridae ^Talk 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I found those on a list of free-use images for thing like that.-- Hornetman16 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Click on the images he removed. They have an alert box on them that specifically says they require permission to be used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was on a list where it was said it was aloud then I already had permission. It's not my fault it changed after I put them there I already had permission.-- Hornetman16 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Well, the funny thing about copyrighted material is that permission can be revoked. There is also the chance that they were uploaded under false pretenses and later decided that they needed a copyright tag. Anything copyrighted is non-free, and anything non-free cannot be on any page that isn't on the mainspace. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the policy (visual identity guidelines) over at meta regarding usage. Note the text on the image description:

This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used :by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under :the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Best regards, Navou 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was on a list where it was said it was aloud then I already had permission. It's not my fault it changed after I put them there I already had permission. But I'll ask again to get you guys off my back like you guys have been all day, BIGNOLE mor than others (that wasn't an attack).-- Hornetman16 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We're only trying to explain it to you. Just know that refusal to remove copyrighted images can lead to disciplinary action from an Admin. It's much easier to find new images. I had one on that I just removed a second ago, because they recently added a copyright tag to it after I was using it. The fact that it was there before hand doesn't change the fact that it is there now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Could ya'll at least leave it alone until I consult with the WikiMedia Foundation?-- Hornetman16 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted them again. Honestly, can you just leave them for the moment? Ok, I'll redesign your userpage, tidy things up and design you a new navbar if you like. Deal? - Alison ☺ 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No Not right now I'm in the middle of asking for permission. IF the answer ends up being no then we'll have a deal...I'll let you know.-- Hornetman16 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be asking for permission, but in the meantime they are not allowed per Wikipedia policy and copyright law, and removal is obligatory. —Kurykh 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who appears to respect the laws of the land, I would assume that you would understand that without express permission (which you cannot currently provide) you are in violation of copyright. In effect, you are illegally using this image. As such, you should keep your page in compliance with the law until you can provide documentation otherwise. As I'm sure others will point out, if you continue to revert your page back to include the images, you'll be approaching a WP:3RR violation. :) Tiggerjay 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Hornetman? —Kurykh 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

When?-- Hornetman16 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Since those images were copyrighted. —Kurykh 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the last person I was talking to was Alison ☺.-- Hornetman16 04:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And what's the difference? —Kurykh 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no Idea what you talking about.-- Hornetman16 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I. Okay, I'll stop now, before we start confusing each other again. —Kurykh 04:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a winner to me.-- Hornetman16 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —Kurykh 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds like a winner to me." = "I Agree."-- Hornetman16 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I apologize for my ignorance of such...eh...expressions. —Kurykh 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay-- Hornetman16 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Icons for your navbar

Hi Hornetman16, have you checked out commons:Category:Icons? There's loads of free stuff there. Riana (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Userpage

Moved here, because the conversation above is a little chaotic :)

From my talk page: what do you think of the one I have above [in my talk page, that is]? I can change the icon set for you to any you like, really. Some folks use the Crystal icon set. I chose the ones above because they're small and intricate. Mind if I snag a copy of your userpage, sandbox it and play around with it? I'll give you a shout when it's done & you can tell me what you think? I did this guy's the other day in about 15 minutes. It did look like this. What do you think? - Alison ☺ 04:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and snag a copy, Genius (meant to be a compliment)!-- Hornetman16 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - snagged. You can see the ongoing work here - Alison ☺ 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to add some stuff to your userspace; navbar templates and stuff. Just so you know! :) - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Try and keep my championship belt tables.-- Hornetman16 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yah. Will do. Leave it with me & see how it goes - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alison, if you like redesigning userpages, mines a bit... chaotic. :P Regards, Navou 04:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 100) I'll take a look if you like. I'm no professional, though (that'd be User:Phaedriel :-) ) - but some folks seem to steal the look of my own page because they like it. User:Kukini was the latest! - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bed I'llbe back tomorrow afternoon! NIGHT!!!-- Hornetman16 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the navbar just now and did minor tidies. The Edge icons are really sweet (why didn't I use those?) Let me know what you think in the morning. All licensed correctly, BTW - Alison ☺ 05:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being sooner but thanks for the new nav. bar!!!-- Hornetman16 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'll have your userpage finished sometime soon, too ... I've not forgotten - Alison ☺ 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you a updated version of my userpage to work with.-- Hornetman16 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool - thanks! I'm going to put your userboxes behind a collapsible template but will leave your faith ones on display, ok? - Alison ☺ 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PERFECT!-- Hornetman16 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How am I doing? - is it kinda heading in the right direction? The group of userboxes in the collapsible template is broken so don't mind them! - Alison ☺ 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's heading in the right direction!!! ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺-- Hornetman16 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornetman16/ScriptureStub

Article content should not reference user pages. Please see WP:ASR. There is a process for proposing new stub types - that way, everything is kept organized. In general, there need to be 30-60 or more articles available for the stub for it to be accepted. --BigDT 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Place it on evry article of a christian bible scripture and you'll get like 200 of them!-- Hornetman16 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but it needs to be proposed first. Also, something like John 3:16 is not a stub. A stub is a paragraph or two at most. But if you are interested in pursuing it, read the instructions at the page I linked ... it's probably a good stub to have - it just needs to be done right.--BigDT 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it get's created it would show up the way I had it right? And for that matter could you help me suggest it so it get's done right?-- Hornetman16 04:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ... first, find every article you can think of that should be a part of that stub category. Don't create new ones just for the sake of having something to put in there - find ones that already exist where "scripture stub" would work better than what is already there. Once you have that, I can help with the proposal. --BigDT 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get started on that tomorrow cause I'm getting sleepy. NIGHT!!-- Hornetman16 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chris Benoit death.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chris Benoit death.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Do not under any circumstance replace free images with nonfree like the one you inserted. Do it again and I'll start handing out vandalism warnings. — Moe ε 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That one's better cause it shows his face which is the purpose of a photo there.-- Hornetman16 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The preference of Wikipedia is to have no photo rather than to have a non-free image. (Moe could have said it more nicely, though, but he is right - uploading non-free images when there is already a free one = very bad.) --BigDT 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I could have been nicer. Then again, checking the history of the Chris Benoit article right now isn't making me kind :/ — Moe ε 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL ... true that. I went through that feeding frenzy with Virginia Tech massacre and Jerry Falwell. I've done my bit for king and country - I'm taking this one off. ;) --BigDT 04:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's not what I read. I forgot what I read but it was but I know it wasn't that.-- Hornetman16 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but free images are prefered over non-free. — Moe ε 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then where the hell can I put that photo on that article?-- Hornetman16 04:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere. We don't use non-free photos when there is a free one available. Wikipedia's mission is to create content that is free of copyright restrictions. WP:FAIR#Policy is the policy for non-free content. The specific requirement is #1 - we don't use a non-free image when a free one can serve the same purpose. Also, there are two other considerations - (1) Copyright law doesn't recognize Wikipedia's attitude of "if I want to use it, it must be fair use". We can't just go take random photos off of someone's website - if it is not a photo that was produced for the purpose of promoting the work in the media, we really have no legal claim to using it. If the copyright holder makes an image for their website, they are doing that to attract traffic (and thus sell ads or their product). By distributing their photo, we infringe on their right to profit from their own creative work. (2) As long as we are willing to settle with a non-free image, we will never get a free one. Most people with Wikipedia articles have a vested interest in that article being as nice as possible. So frequently, if we just ask for a GFDL photo, we will get one. But if we are willing to use a non-free photo, nobody is going to give us a GFDL photo because there's nothing in it for them. I hope this long-winded explanation helps. If you want the even-longer-winded version, take a look at my user page. ;) --BigDT 04:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What if I got permission?-- Hornetman16 04:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for assistance with writing a letter to ask for permission. The short version is that simply having "permission for Wikipedia to use" the image or a "non-commercial use" release is NOT enough. We need for the image to be released under a "free license", like the GFDL. --BigDT 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

wm23

Don't keep adding Chris Benoit's death to the article, Eddie's last WM was WM21, but it isn't listed. Are you going to list Backlash as his last Backlash and One Night Stand as his last One Night Stand. Leave the trivia out of it. Darrenhusted 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to get mad at me...all I wanted was a reason which you gave me and I agree with.-- Hornetman16 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:76.175.239.114

I think he should be permanently blocked cause he'll probbaly go back to the same crap after the block has expired.-- Hornetman16 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't really permanently block IP addresses, as they tend to be transient in nature anyways. Too much collateral damage - Alison ☺ 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am patching this over from my talk page so you will see the answer. Alison said it perfectly. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE pic

Why do you insist on replacing the current picture (which is fine and looks nice), is it because you just want the picture to be one you uploaded? The two look like they are the same pic, the only difference being yours is .png while the previous one was .jpg. TJ Spyke 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Click on the photo's instead of just reverting my edit and you'll see the difference it's the same way on the Brand pages and everyone agrees with those!-- Hornetman16 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shark Boy

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. "[A]ny material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source". McPhail 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I Will report you if you don't stop! Despite what those policies say. If there were things likely to be challenged the admin would take care it. So stop or I will report you!-- Hornetman16 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Philippians 4:13

Hornetman, please note that I reverted your edit on Talk:Philippians 4:13 regarding the status of the page from sub to start. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment#Quality_scale in which you will see that this does not contain any of the required elements yet. Please continue to contribute on the main page and it will eventually reach this status on its own. Tiggerjay 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ecw logo.gif

Regarding Image:Ecw logo.gif, I restored the PNG version of the logo on the Extreme Championship Wrestling article. PNG versions tend to be favored over GIF images - see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading a transparent PNG version. I'm tagging the old logos for deletion. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Welcome!!!-- Hornetman16 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You are not to change an image's copyright status just so you can include it on your userpage, as you did here. It is a violation of the owner of the photograph's intellectual property, and it is not tolerated on Wikipedia, as well as being a likely violation of United States Copyright Law. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you cannot simply perform copy-paste moves on Wikipedia. The license that Wikipedia uses (GFDL) requires attribution. You copied text from somewhere to User:Hornetman16/sandbox/Infobox championship/WWE Championship. The page has now been deleted as it violated copyright. Please, in future, make a note of what article you are copying from so as to not violate copyright. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted it deleted anyway!-- Hornetman16 01:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will NOT warn you again. Further tagging of that image as GFDL is in violation of our policies. "GFDL" is different to "permission given". You will be blocked if you continue. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what goes on there? What tag?-- Hornetman16 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag that's currently on it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you to leave it alone. I've blocked you for three hours. You're not to violate someone's intellectual property in this manner. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock I was just trying to do the right thing by finding the right tag I'm sorry!-- Hornetman16 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

By randomly changing it, when your intent was to make it free so you could use it on your userpage? Despite the fact that I warned you not to change it? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was trying make where I could use it on my userpage I'll admit that. But Iwas trying to find the correct tag because there's correct tag for everything and I believe no license isn't I won't touch it again I've got better things to do with the Championship pages! Please unblock me on those grounds.-- Hornetman16 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith and unblocking you. Something tells me I'll regret it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My IP is still bocked and I can't edit.-- Hornetman16 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.184.88.30 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

thankx!!-- Hornetman16 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Homeland Security Advisory System on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --HBow3 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

USF Color changes

Your recently changed all versions of USF gold to the incorrect color. According to USF's own visual standards at http://usfweb2.usf.edu/ur/identity_standards.pdf and http://usfweb2.usf.edu/ur/logos/ , the official USF colors for the Web are Green: #336633; Gold: #CCCC99, which was my earlier revision.--BaRiMzI 02:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read this before putting the incorrect colors and reverting edits.--BaRiMzI 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That CCC99 crap isn't gold! I'm reverting it so it is gold!-- Hornetman16 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem here? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

H says that USF gold for web is #CCCC99 which isn't gold I made it gold and he reverted it! I just trying my look correct not exactly correct!-- Hornetman16 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman - chill out. BaRiMzI is quoting you the official colour standards here. We need to stick with these for a number of reasons - Alison ☺ 03:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you Alison.--BaRiMzI 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone if you give me the policy that says so! If you don't I keep reverting!-- Hornetman16 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The next time you revert, I will block you for edit warring. How's that? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the links the other editor has provided. Colours have a very clear standard and remember that the colours we see on our display may not be the same as ones other people see, for a whole myriad of technical reasons. See white point, gamma correction, color temperature etc for the reasons why - Alison ☺ 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll quit now but I still want to see the policy!-- Hornetman16 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy? WP:3RR will do it. Read the links and learn up on colors. It's quite interesting - Alison ☺ 03:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are school color's even alound to decorate the infobox with?-- Hornetman16 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello TrueCRaysball/Archive/2! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

Getting Started
General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates
Useful Links
Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal Sign up for the Newsletter
Miscellaneous
Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? • Forums

Work Groups
Anabaptist Work Group • Core Topics Work Group Iglesia ni Cristo Work Group • Jesus Work Group Outreach Work Group
Projects
Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics
Similar WikiProjects
Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Catholicism • Lutheranism

~ Wikihermit 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetman16 2. In the sole hour of its existance, you gathered 8 opposes. Now is not the proper time to run for adminship for you, seeing as you just came off of a hot dispute and have issues concerning fair use and images on Wikipedia. Please hold off for a couple months.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you let it go untill it's closing time cause it might surprise you!-- Hornetman16 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend signing up for an editor review. -w p k t sfs 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I just don't think it fair for the discussion to be shut down 30 min. after I submit it when it scheduled to go for 7 days. That's not right.-- Hornetman16 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

An ideal administrator candidate would be aware of the logic behind and application of WP:SNOW. Daniel 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it's fair!-- Hornetman16 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually is fair. Primarily on you. Seriously. Think about it ... - Alison ☺ 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

True now that i REALLY think about it.--06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know you, and I didnt vote in your RFA. But I want to encourage you to let it go, keep working hard, and to not be discouraged. Maybe try in a few months time. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You will get it. the trick is to have patience, to wait it out. To wait for ages, until your clear. Keep your head down, do the right thing, steadily contribute, and you will eventually pass an RFA. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPA

This could be argued is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and consider changing your wording. Corvus cornix 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, i wasn't calling him a baby I meant he acted like one like I been doing on that stupid photo!-- Hornetman16 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA? Corvus cornix 06:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i have and I didn't attack him!-- Hornetman16 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you politely to remove the personal attack. Are you going to do it, or not? Corvus cornix 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will since everyone is making it look like something it's not!-- Hornetman16 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the cooperation. Despite the ill will with which you did it. Corvus cornix 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it with ill will cause no one would listen to me.-- Hornetman16 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That may give you a clue. It's 3 o'clock in Florida, maybe you should go to sleep and edit again when you have a clearer head. Corvus cornix 07:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point...night!-- Hornetman16 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. If you have any questions or comments, please ask them on my talk page. Wishes, --w p k t sfs 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you Review!-- Hornetman16 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hornetman

May I ask what this is in reference to? I'm curious because Coelacan has not been active in some time, so it may help to explain why you are annoyed with him. Please feel free to answer here. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He blocked me and it was immidiatly undone by another admin.--Hornetman16 06:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan hasn't blocked you - check out your block log, it's here - are you sure? ~ Riana ⁂ 06:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I swear that's what I read on my talk history!--Hornetman16 06:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that's weird! Well, can you please retract your statement? Just post on Coelacan's page that you made a mistake, or whatever? It looks bad otherwise. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I sure will--Hornetman16 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. You might want to adjust your sig a wee bit, it's a bit dark ATM. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Would you mind toning it down a bit? Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social networking site. We don't mind you having user boxes for your faith, but having so much of your page focused on your religion is distracting. I'm not saying don't mention your religion at all, I mention mine on my page, but please just take it down some. I really don't want to see you get in trouble for your userpage. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it the way it is and I'm not taking off the flag!--Hornetman16 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, you can post the flag, but the...eh...current size of the flag is the online equivalent of shoving it in people's faces. —Kurykh 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm showing I'm a proud Christian would you do the same to a gay person with a gaypide flag...I think not.--Hornetman16 23:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm bisexual (like Kinsey scale 4). Do you see any flags on my userpage? Did you even know? I'm also a member of a non-Christian religion. Any flags? Nope. Doing so would be rude and in-your-face, just as .... - Alison ☺ 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify; it's a little matter of showing respect for those of us who are different. Sure, one may be x/y/z and be proud of it. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with userboxes, flags, etc. But yours?? C'mon! Note that we even have admins on here that are Evangelican Lutheran pastors & are highly respected in the community here. Ask yourself why ... - Alison ☺ 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing it cause I'm not offending anybody.--Hornetman16 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'm offended. Will you change it? (And remember, I already designed one of those big flags into your page. What does that say about me?) You might also want to check out the policy on soapboxing and also WP:UP#NOT. Being nice here ... - Alison ☺ 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not puting ya'll down so what's your point.--Hornetman16 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec, and I owe you mail, Elinor!) You didn't read a word of what I said, did you? And please - it's not an "us vs. them" thing at all, so don't go there. As an aside, have you thought about applying to the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program? - Alison ☺ 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that on Wikipedia, your userpage does not belong to you. The community is fairly tolerant, and does close its eyes to a certain amount that does not help in building an encyclopaedia. But once a few people have gently suggested that the contents are not appropriate, it would be advisable to listen. If you want to host a page about yourself and your religious beliefs, why not get your own free webpage? ElinorD (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Have one...and by the way, asking me to take off my christian flag is like taking away my constitutional right of freedom of religion and how to express it. It's not on an article so I see no problem with it.--Hornetman16 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* - it's not like that at all. Wikipedia is a private website. There are rules and regulations and codes of conduct here. There is no freedom of speech here, for example. And, like any community, if you abuse it you get sanctioned. If I went along to your church and started shouting all sorts of stuff, I'd get ejected (and rightly so!). Think about it some more and read those links I just gave you. I'm personally not all that caring, one way or another, but I can see where the issue is for others around here. And you must have respect for others. You must, and I must. That's how it works around here. I had a lot of respect for your beliefs and opinions when I redid your page even though I vehemently disagree with so much of its content. I still did it, and did it well. Once again, ask yourself why ... - Alison ☺ 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be privately owned but the servers are ing the US so this has no choice but to listen to the US laws which includes the contitution.--Hornetman16 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech does nto apply to private property. Viridae ^Talk 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Nope. I have my own private webserver (I do, actually!). If I restrict its access to vegan Colombian Jains, who like the colour pink, I'm well within my rights to do so. You can throw as many constitutions as you like at me, but that doesn't matter. Do I have a constitutional right to quote from .... ohhh .... The Satanic Bible in your church?? Terrible example, perhaps, but if not - why not? And another thing. You're. Not. Listening. To. A. Word. I'm Saying. Not a word - Alison ☺ 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Hornetman, you are grossly misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - Note that nowhere in there does it say that someone must allow people to say what they want in their place - just that Congress cannot. Such as if a Satanist was trying to convert people in your church- you'd have a right to tell them to get out, as it is private property. Subnote: I wrote this before reading the above post. Spooky how similar it is --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Satanists are everybody's stock boogeyman example, I suspect :) - Alison ☺ 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (no, not a Satanist, Hornetman)

Well I don't suppose having a Buddhist in a church would be quite so alarming. "So uh, don't be mean to people or lie, don't do bad stuff, don't do things that hurt people- even for money. Try to improve yourself and don't just be good- think good. I think that's about it..." compared to "Give into sin, ignore your religious teachings- they're full of it, only care about people that matter, if someone fucks with you you fuck them up real bad, I think that's about all that matters right now." ^^ --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh - I see you've read it, too. Smite/smash? - Alison ☺ 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (strange conversation to be having here :) )

You would certainly lose this case. There's a secular hegemony here. They may not be satanists, but they'd be more accepting to an editor who was one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.127.22 (talk • contribs)

Frankly, if some Satanist shows up here and plasters a giant Baphomet on their userpage, I'm going to have a problem with that in the exact same manner, trust me on that - Alison ☺ 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As would I to a giant Star of David or a... whatever those people that celebrate Kwaanza worship with. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not have people dissing Jews on my page. Jews are God's chosen people and Jesus was a Jew. You diss them it the exact same as dissing me cause I take serious offense to that!!!!!✡--Hornetman16 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please - Hornetman - who's diss-(respecting) Jews here? - Alison ☺ 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Were it a giant Bisexual Pride Baphomet, that user would be in the Corps of Administrators by now. --71.242.127.22 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where's your reasoning for that little gem? Is there a bisexual cabal here or something (and where do I sign :) ) - Alison ☺ 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And another thing; you've been in one conflict after another after another around here and just about all of them have involved your complete lack of respect for the opinions of your fellow-editors. Another question to maybe ponder on. It really doesn't need to be like this. Wikipedia is built on people working together to achieve consensus, not who's the biggest shouter. We're not here to "win" battles - that's not what it's about - Alison ☺ 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let me have my userpage the way it is so when can achieve more on the Articles!--Hornetman16 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not. Listening. To. A. Word. :( The only thing you'll listen to is when it goes to crisis and some other admin comes along and nukes your page (as happened last time). No lesson learnt, it seems. Only this time, I won't be here to intervene and pick up the pieces. You're already in conflict with policy and I'm trying in vain to get you to do something before it's too late. Listening yet? - Alison ☺ 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a flag dang it. what matter's mor is the article's not my user page. What do you want me to do with the flag?--Hornetman16 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"what matter's mor is the article's not my user page." - correct! "What do you want me to do with the flag?" - I want you to think, and to start showing respect for the beliefs and opinions of other editors. As Feba asks, is it too much to ask for you to tone it down just a little? - Alison ☺ 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this is not yet another "battle" of you (Christian) vs. the rest of the world (Us Whatevers), so don't paint it in that light. It's about respect and consideration for others, is all - Alison ☺ 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is too much to ask. But I shrink it if it'll make ya happy and get you off my back about it!--Hornetman16 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the editor review that I just gave you, please see that the majority of editors in this discussion agree that you should tone down your userpage. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Your RfA got so many opposes because of things like this. If you give some you will gain some. This discussion should be ending soon, before it evolves into more of a fight than it already is. BTW, we are not asking for a kidney, just a size reduction. --w p k t sfs 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If your user page isn't important, why don't you just clean it up so it isn't A- annoying and B- offensive? Look at my user page. I have many more religious beliefs than "Athiest/Agnostic", but you don't see me spouting them off. You don't see a This user laughs at organized religion, or This user celebrates Christmas as a holiday about Santa, not Jesus on my page- just because something describes you doesn't mean it's appropriate, and definitely shoving it in your face isn't. How would you feel if you opened someone's user page and came across a giant image of a Pentagram or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spagetti Monster filling up half your screen? Nobody is asking you to remove the references to your faith, just tone them down so they aren't being shoved in your face. Remember that a user page is supposed to help people identify with you as an editor, and get an idea of what you do on wikipedia so they they too might help. Not to go around spreading your religion- you can use myspace for that. Not to mention, plenty of people on myspace have trouble in their lives- some of them could probably use some of Jesus' love. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and toned down both huge flag images to 100px each -the community has expressed a valid concern that's really easy to fix, and users do not own their userpages. Hornetman16, please be aware that although you are proud to be a Christian, the best way to show it on Wikipedia is to improve articles relating to Christianity, rather than using your userpage to (rather redundantly, I must say) express your love towards your deity. Eventually, any god who values virtue will reward the patience that you may eventually use towards others by being modest about your convictions. Your friendly neighborhood transcendental pluralist, Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it already. Nihiltres is trying to compromise here and help you out. Let it go - Alison ☺ 05:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- And again. How far are you going to take this here? Is direct action the only thing you understand? Are you going for some sort of see-how-often-I-get-my-page-nuked award or something? - Alison ☺ 05:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Hornetman16, it might be a good idea to simply let the images be sized down, because in my opinion, the next step would be MfD (yes, the entire page), and letting you have some expression is probably fine - we just don't want the POV in our faces, and you haven't toned it down yourself after several extensive, reasonable requests. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 05:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I now see images at only 200px, so I'm willing to call off the brigades. What you should realize, however, Hornetman16, is that usually Wikipedians will prefer it when your faith in god(s) is expressed in scholarly work towards educating people about him/her/them, that is, without giant images on your user page expressing your frenzy. Your userpage regardless doesn't quite fit with WP:NOT, and I suggest you read that page carefully before continuing to edit. :) Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 05:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      - He needs to understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground and his "wins" are essentially Pyrrhic - Alison ☺ 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret..." -Matthew 6:6, NAB. --w p k t sfs 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what everyone else has said about the flag. And guess what? I'm a Roman Catholic. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Nihiltres's page

That was incredibly disrespectful. We all have different religions. We're not trying to get you to change your beliefs, just have some basic respect for people with beliefs which are different to yours. To effectively tell someone of a different religion that yours is better is quite, quite wrong. If you pull a stunt like that again, I will personally block you for a short time, and I will not unblock your account just because you harp on and on about it. You were very lucky that Coredesat and Deskana were so nice to you. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Wikpedia has too high a standard when it comes to respect cause not on here i guarentee you would say that wasn't disrespectful. He personaly attacked my religon (no directly but he did by by not getting how my faith goes correctly) and I was just defending my self so if any one was disrespectful it was him but whatever!--Hornetman16 06:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You, sir, have a lot to learn about the world, and a lot to learn about respecting others. I keep on banging on about this, now ask yourself why. BTW - I'm at the point where I have serious justification for deleting your userpage, but I won't. I'll ask the community instead. That's how it goes around here - Alison ☺ 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You arev ery lucky alison got the mfd notice up because I am on the edge of just nuking and protecting. Viridae ^Talk 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You say you working for me when your not cause I try to work with you back but you ignore it.--Hornetman16 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How was he disrespectful to you? You have huge blaring flags announcing your religion on your userpage, fine. You are asked, very nicely, to tone it down. You don't, people try to engage you in discussion about it, you start off a revert war. Cut it out, seriously. And to tell someone of a different religion that 'there is only one God' - regardless of whether that's true or not - is wrong. I think that you need to do one of the following things:

(a) Go on a break. Come back when you've got a clearer perspective on how we interact with people around here.

(b) Stop editing your userspace. Find an article and work on it.

(c) Keep doing what you're doing, and some impatient admin who's had a long day will block you for your trouble.

Which is the best option? I'm not recommending (c), by the way. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered a verse and I know in the right state of mind and asking what do you want me to do to my userpage? It bugs me that I can't have it the way I want it cause 3 people think it's to annoying.--Hornetman16 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of this nonsense. I did my best to help you here, but no. It's time for the community to decide. It has been requested that your userpage be deleted. Please see the MfD entry at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hornetman16 and feel free to comment politely. Honestly, I'm generally known for my patience, but your behaviour has completely worn it out. Just as well I'm on break now. Many other admins would have nuked it on the spot for being a gross violation of policy, because it is. This way, you get a chance. Please note that this is nothing to do with Christianity or otherwise. There are plenty of Christians around these parts. This is to do with respect, civility and violation of Wikipedia rules - Alison ☺ 07:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude. I have a userpage too. I'm not hanging gay pride flags on it, or advocating equal rights for women, or talking about my atheism. Do you know why? Because it's offensive to people with differing sensibilities. And I know there are many. People like yourself, for example, wouldn't like what I might put in a hypothetical userbox.

Look, all I'm asking is that you try to play nicely. When you are respectful of people, they will respect you. Have you tried asking yourself why we're asking you about your userpage, and not anyone else? Can you just try looking at your userpage, not as a Christian, not as a teenager, not as any of the things you strongly believe are representative of yourself, and tell me how it looks to you? ~ Riana ⁂ 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The userpage has been deleted and full-protected by Daniel, until such times in which you realize that Wikipedia is not MySpace. I strongly suggest contributing to the encyclopedia, instead of causing mayhem and making things worse for yourself. --Dark Falls ^talk 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I TRIED TO KEEP MY COOL AND YA'LL JUST COULDN'T LEAVE IT BE!!! I HAVE SENT A VERY STERN LETTER OF YOU ALL'S DISREPECT TO THE OFFICE!--Hornetman16

why am I blocked from editing? I had nothing to do with Cenafan16 I have no clue who taht is can I get unblocked please?--Hornetman16 07:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously autoblocked by your own sockpuppet that I blocked. It is against alternate account policy to use a sockpuppet account to avoid questioning on your own account. Drop the act, and get with the program, kid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that complaining to Wikimedia will not do any good. There are ways to discuss things like this, and that isn't one. However, given the fact that you don't seem to care at all about Wikipedia policy, I will just link you to Wikipedia:Starter toolset, and maybe, just maybe, some of the policies you read there will give you an idea of what you're doing wrong. However, given the fact that you don't seem to have any interest in listening to what other users have to say, I doubt you will. Honestly, you seem to enjoy creating trouble for yourself --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Creating a false grassroots campaign to go after Daniel. That wasn't very nice. For someone claiming the high moral ground, you've no qualms about lying and deception - Alison ☺ 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not very christian. Why don't you talk to us with an open mind? Everything will work out if you don't shun everyone's ideas as inferior. ~ Wikihermit 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Hornetman16 has been misunderstood somewhat here. While the comment he posted to my user talk page was, overall, inappropriate, his comment seems to have been spurred by a particular (specifically religiously general) phrasing I used earlier - I said that "[...] when your faith in god(s) is expressed in scholarly [...] about him/her/them [...]", which could be misinterpreted as a misunderstanding of the nature of the Christian god or Trinity. Hornetman16, I understand reasonably well the intricacies of Christian theology, having studied it, if dispassionately, for five years at my high school, which happened to be a private one run by Jesuits. Since this is the case, I must apologize, to a certain degree at least, for the warnings leveraged against you. Regardless, your treatment of other users through your userpage has been inappropriate - Wikipedia guidelines concerning the user page say that a userpage shouldn't be the place for such blatant, shall I put it, advertising, regardless of the strength of your convictions. I and other users are certainly willing to help you create a userpage which compromises and allows you a certain expression of your faith without disturbing others who wish merely to create an encyclopedia, regardless of personal belief in any god, gods, or lack thereof. We don't want to attack you - we want you to not question our beliefs, directly or indirectly. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your User page

Hey, just chill out about the user page. I'm a christian too, so don't take this as an attack. Your user page is a little over the top. Yeah, I agree that you should be allowed to put the christian and american flag on your user page, but as Alison has said, you don't need to shove it into other people's faces. A small infobox or a few userboxes will do just fine. If you would like, I would be willing to help you create a user page that doesn't cause any problems. ~ Wikihermit 07:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikihermit - that's exactly what I told him the last time. Good luck with that one - Alison ☺ 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like my old one back and I'd revert to just the userboxes but first I need my USerpage unprtected. If your an admin could you do that so I can start to follow policy?--Hornetman16 07:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not an admin. 2) You blew it with trying to follow policy. 3) If you seriously want to have a user page that follows policy, you could ask an admin to copy the source code to here, and fix it while listening to other users completely reasonable suggestions. ~ Wikihermit 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to start wheel-warring with another administrator over your userpage. I'm afraid i'm all out of goodwill today, so you'll have to take it up with Daniel - Alison ☺ 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that autoblock you got caught in - well, that's going to last an awfully long time, assuming that other guy was you. What do you intend to do about that? - Alison ☺ 08:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Get angry and beg cause that wasn't me!--Hornetman16 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

TrueCRaysball/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

72.184.88.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Cenafan16". The reason given for Cenafan16's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".

Blocking administrator: Ryulong (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: reason — You created a sockpuppet to protest about Daniel's deletion of your userpage, pretending to be an uninvolved user, and then your real account got caught in the autoblock when your sockpuppet was blocked. I'd be prepared to lift the autoblock after 48 hours, or perhaps even 24 hours, if you promise to behave. But you don't get to create sockpuppets to plead your cause, and then escape the autoblock. ElinorD (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're claiming that someone who happened to be using your ISP, had the same IP as you, *and* created an account *AND* immediately made edits *concerning you* and nothing else... wasn't you? If this were a movie, you'd really be testing my suspension of disbelief right now --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THAT WASN'T ME I WAS LOGGED OFF AT THE TIME!!!!!!--Hornetman16 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And is that because you were logged into another account? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's patently obvious that it was a sockpuppet of you. Not only does this user have a broken form of your signature, they also have an interest in wrestling, specifically John Cena, of who you used to have a photo of on your userpage. The only edits from that account are also related to agreeing with something you said. So don't try to fool us. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins can also see in the deleted edits of your userpage that that particular IP edited your userpage before when you were blocked, and acknowledged being you while logged off. ElinorD (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THAT WASN'T ME THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MY BROTHER WHY BLOCK ME FOR HIS ACTIONS?--Hornetman16 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Either calm down or I'll protect this page to force you to. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They blocked me for my brother's actions and they won't unblock me.--Hornetman16 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If your brother is acting in your stead (which I rather doubt, given your attitude right now, and your actions in the past) you should read WP:MEAT --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask him to do that, he did it on his own.--Hornetman16 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just tough luck. I warned you that you'd been unblocked twice on the grounds of us assuming good faith and that nobody would assume good faith anymore, and frankly, I'm not willing to assume good faith anymore either. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not making any accusations, but maybe you should reflect on Revelation 21:8. ElinorD (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not good faith if you unblock me this time...it's called understanding that my brother stuck his nose where it didn't belong.--Hornetman16 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd be assuming good faith because we'd be assuming you're telling the truth, when it's obvious from your old userpage that you've evaded blocks by editing from IPs before. So no, no unblock. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell do I have to do to prove I'm telling the truth!--Hornetman16 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is man, people are tired of it. They're tired of being nice on the off chance that you were trying to go with the rules. They're tired of acting like you mean no harm. At this point, it would be just plain irresponsible to assume that you or your brother were making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia, and honestly at this point it's somewhat irresponsible to assume you have a brother at all. Compared to quite a few other cases, people have been VERY nice and EXTREMELY lenient with you. Constantly trying to forge your own path in opposition to policy and other users is what got you here, not a stray comment from a sibling --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a brother and don't insult him agian by saying he doesn't exist! Now please unblock me!--Hornetman16 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No. And you know why. Do NOT ask again. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are being awful selfish. How would you like it if your brother got you blocked and there was nothing you can do?-Hornetman16 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about a comment from your brother, or you probably would've been unblocked. That, combined with quite a few other things (such as has already been mentioned) makes it quite hard to believe you, and even if we do, this is still really just the straw that broke the camel's back --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Hornetman, this is about the fact that given your history, other editors don't trust you. For example, a sysop could go ON WHEELS!! all over the place, two days later say that their account was hijacked, and people would believe them, because they have a long history of respecting the rules. If a week old account started going ON WHEELS, they'd be indef blocked with extreme prejudice. As it is, if my brother got me blocked (a non-scenario, since I am an only child- although it could happen with other family members), I'd make his life hell, not stretch my already thin relationship with other editors out moreso. Honestly, man, I'd really thought you'd learned something when you put yourself up for editor review, I'm disappointed in you. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock won't last forever. Just stick it out. Say your prayers tonight, and reflect on whether Jesus really wants you to keep on saying it was your brother. (Remember Revelation 21:8, again.) Stop arguing. Behave yourself. The autoblock will expire. And you can start editing within policy. I'd be prepared to adopt you, if it would help. If you're not prepared to tone down the disruptive behaviour, I'm afraid you're heading for an indefinite block. Alison and Riana and Deskana have been very patient and helpful, and look how you've repaid them. ElinorD (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Midnight Cry

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Midnight Cry, by Wikihermit (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Midnight Cry is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Midnight Cry, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Midnight Cry itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal information

Do not post personal information regarding your brother again. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hornetman16,

I have been watching this page for a while now. You should be aware that Wikipedia is a community, and like any community it has expectations and requirements for those who would like to be members. In creating a username, and in contributing to wikipedia, you have agreed (both implicitly and explicitly) to abide by those expectations and requirements.

You may not agree with those expectations and requirements, and that is perfectly fine. If you do not like them, you do not have to be a part of this community. Many people have - patiently and kindly - attempted to make sure that you were aware of our community expectations and what they mean. Your block is a result of a failure to abide by those requirements and expectations.

Unblocking could have been a possibility, had you been (a) patient and most importantly (b) kind. However, you have shown no sign that (a) you regret your past actions, (b) you want to abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future, or (c) you can work with others in the cooperative manner that wikipedia requires. Short of clear evidence of such a shift in your attitude and approach, I would not expect your account to be unblocked anytime soon. And no, saying it louder and more often will not get you what you want.

Pastordavid 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree to what they did to my userpage?--Hornetman16 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether David does or not, undoing Daniel's actions would be wheel warring and I have a feeling he has more sense than that. Repeatedly asking different admins if they agree with you changes nothing since none of them would undo Daniel's actions, and if they did, they could get into trouble. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. (a) Whether I agree or not is not relevent to what I stated above, which is the issue at hand; and (b) although it is not the issue at hand, I did think that your userpage was overkill, and your response to those who politely asked you to consider changing it was disrespectful, rude, and uncivil. And no, I would not, for a moment, consider reversing the current block unless everyone involved in this conversation thought that it was for the best. Pastordavid 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Could ya'll ask daniel to message me so I can talk to him...I'd do it my self but I'm blocked.--Hornetman16 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's quite early in the morning where Daniel lives, he's quite likely either asleep or just waking up. I'll drop him a note to come by your talkpage when he gets the chance. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Write up what you want to say to me here, and I'll read it in 8 hours' time. Daniel 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to make copromise with you to get control of my userpage back where I can edit it.---Hornetman16 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He said he'd read this page in eight hours so if you can type your compromise up and leave it here, he'll read it when he can. In the mean time, other people can read it and comment. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I waant to make a deal that I'll revertmy userpage back to befor the flags if you let me have it back and I'll start treating it more with policy.--Hornetman16 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion and offer

Hi, Hornetman. I want to make some comments and suggestions:

Almost everything you have done since you registered your account has been leading you more closely in the direction of an indefinite block. I don't want to see that happen. Several other administrators don't want to see that happen either, but we are running out of patience.

I think you need a mentor or someone to adopt you. I'm willing to volunteer. That does not mean that I can or will save you from a block if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, but it does mean that I can give you advice on what you need to do or to stop doing in order not to be blocked.

Although you may not have realised this, your userpage was not promoting Jesus (though that would have been unacceptable under Wikipedia policy); it was promoting Hornetman, and not Hornetman at his best. It did not look like the page of a Christian; it looked like the page of an immature and noisy teenager, who was unwilling to show respect for others.

If you are willing to accept either mentoring or adoption from an experienced user (not necessarily with me, though I don't think you'll find many other people willing to offer), then I am willing to undo the autoblock on your account (provided the blocking admin agrees, as I think he will), and to allow you some kind of userpage which discreetly mentions your faith in an inoffensive way rather than having it directing to your talk page (provided the deleting admin agrees, as I think he will). One of the first things that I will be suggesting is that you make your signature more discreet as well. You need to start giving the impression that you are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to draw attention to yourself.

It's entirely up to you. If you don't accept, the autoblock will probably expire in a few days anyway, and you'll be free to edit again, though I'm pretty sure your userpage will remain redirected to your talk page, as you've blown all the chances you've had so far. My motive in making this offer is to give you a last chance of avoiding rushing headlong into an indefinite block. Think about it. ElinorD (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the adoption thing!--Hornetman16 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know User:Pastordavid has agreed to help you too. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like Wikihermit to adopt me.--Hornetman16 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense to Wikihermit, but Wikihermit has only been here for a few months. I think ElinorD would be better suited to help you more. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey! ;-). Sorry, but I'm not adopting users. ~ Wikihermit 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwanted Wikihermit cause he's also a Christian but what you thinks best I'll do!--Hornetman16 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really try to avoid favoring people based on their religion instead of their contributions as an editor. That really doesn't show that you're willing to follow policy, it says "Well, obviously he's right if he's Christian" or "I only like the company of other Christians". Now that might not be what you intend, but it does give people that feeling. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm a Christian; I just don't plaster it all over my user page. I'm going to bed now, and I don't know what you and my fellow admins will be saying to each other in the next few hours, but since you've agreed to adoption, I'll say that I, at any rate, am happy to see the autoblock cancelled after twenty-four hours, so that you can edit again. I am also happy, at that time, to see your userpage unprotected, so that you can express your faith discreetly. If people tell you that it's annoying them, accept that it is, and tone it down. Do not under any circumstances try to add anything to your user page (or any other page on Wikipedia) that would help to identify you in real life. Try to make some useful edits to articles. Perhaps revert some vandalism, but make sure you don't call something vandalism unless you're quite, quite sure it is. Finally, I suggest you tone down your signature. Try and make it so that it won't hurt anyone's eyes, so that it won't stand out among other signatures on pages, and so that it won't take up so much space in the source code of pages. You need to show that you're willing to make compromises, when it doesn't involve denying your faith — and nobody on Wikipedia is going to ask you to do that. Good luck. ElinorD (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

TrueCRaysball/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

72.184.88.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Cenafan16". The reason given for Cenafan16's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".

Blocking administrator: Ryulong (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Hornetman16, this account is not currently blocked, its your sockpuppet Cenafan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been blocked which has caused you to be unable to edit. But I am not about to unblock either there or here as after reading all the words above I see no evidence of you demonstrating that you will become a constructive editor. Let alone your several attempts at sockpuppeting. Experienced editors have bent over backwards trying to give you constructive advice and second chances but you repay them with this. There's a suggestion below for another place for you to play. Go there and annoy them, we have serious business to do here. —Moondyne 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianwikipedia

If you want something like this, go to Conservapedia. There is no need to disrupt wikia and there is especially no need to spam Wikipedia trying to create your own little wiki when it's already been set up for you. Go, and be happy --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get unblocked I've learned my lesson by being blocked for 6 hours. I'sd like to be able to edit before I'm forced to bed by my mom.--Hornetman16 04:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Giving this response to my offer to help just shows that you're not ready to be unblocked. And you haven't toned down your signature, have you? ElinorD (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditions for unprotection/unblocking

I'm not convinced yet. These are the list things I feel you will need to do to regain the ability to edit Wikipedia, and the ability to edit your userpage.

1) Admit that you are the person behind the Cenafan16 (talk · contribs) account. You're not fooling anyone, least of all me, and continual denials in the face of clear evidence is bordering on disruption.

2) Change your signature to something readable. Not custom backgrounds, and ensure the text colour is not yellow or bright red or similar.

3) Create a userpage in your userspace, and let myself and others (Riana, etc.) review it and remove anything which is prohibited per WP:USER. If you simply add more stuff to it which crosses over the line after the content is readded to your main userpage, then it will simply been deleted and protected again.

4) Don't even bring up anyone elses' religion when you speak with anyone. It's uncivil, and many times a form of a personal attack. If you don't stop, you will be indefinitely blocked.

5) Don't mention your own religion except for the small mention on your userpage. Don't bring it up in discussion; we don't care what religion you or anyone else is, and it makes no difference to improving the encyclopedia.

6) Agree not to create any more sockpuppet accounts, or edit from your IP logged out. I will block you indefinitely if you do so again.

7) Pay attention to anyone who helps you by adopting you. They're here to help you.

8) Spend more time improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to editing userspace. --Dark Falls ^talk 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I ask for review of these conditions (the first seven are my initial ones) by Riana, Alison, Deskana etc. (anyone else involved), and feel free to add 8 and beyond. Hornetman, we're trying to help you, because if you continue down the path you are currently on you will probably end up banned. Daniel 09:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Daniel on those conditions. They are basically a code of conduct that specifically states what Wikipedia expects of everyone, with respect to you. --Deskana (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd bend a little on Condition 1. As Daniel says, you're not fooling anyone. If you're not prepared to own up because of your personal integrity, or out of love for Jesus(?), then I see little point in forcing a humiliating confession for the sake of being allowed to edit Wikipedia. Nobody believes you. Just drop the denials, and we'll drop the accusations, and both parties can move on. If you keep up the denials, there's little hope that you'll find anyone to undo the autoblock (or to undo your next real block); if you shut up about it, I'm sure we will, too.

Regarding Condition 3, you can't create anything unless and until you're unblocked. So the main thing is to agree to do what's necessary to be unblocked, and as a next step, we can discuss an acceptable user page.

I suggest that your next post on this page, whether it's one of agreement or not, should have an acceptable signature. ElinorD (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but might I suggest we add Do not make legal threats. If there is illegal content on Wikipedia, the WP:OFFICE will take care of it. You will not. and possibly If someone asks you to stop doing something, ask your adopting user (or one of the above list of people, Riana, Alison, Deskana, etc.) before you do it anyway, to be sure you aren't breaking policy.? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I AGREE...I was Cenafan16 I as trying to swap accounts cause I didn't want to be known as Hornetman16 anymore.--Hornetman16 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't changed your signature. ElinorD (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll change it after today cause I dressed it up for 4th of July!--Hornetman16 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? I understand it's important to you, but I don't get why you need to change your signature for a holiday like Independance Day. It certainly violates the spirit of WP:SIG. --Deskana (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that better--Hornetman➊➏ 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No. What's wrong with "Hornetman16", with perhaps "(talk)" at the end? Read WP:SIG. --Deskana (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. It shouldn't be bright. It shouldn't have a coloured background. It shouldn't attract attention. And it shouldn't take up more space in the source than the actual message. ElinorD (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this?--Hornetman16✞ 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That color is still bright enough that it's very hard to read --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this--Hornetman16✞ 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's fine, although the cross seems to be impossible to click. I recommend you replace it with the standard dagger symbol, that would look like this: Hornetman16† --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, i'm an idiot. Ignore the comment about it being unable to be clicked, although I still recommend you use the dagger instead of the cross, as it is slightly more neutral, but also easier to see. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see a cross; I saw a question mark. ElinorD (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worrk tabout it I changed it--Hornetman16(Talk) 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So...

You have still given no indication that you agree to any of Daniel's conditions. Thanks for changing your signature, though. ~ Riana ⁂ 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What else is left? I agreed didn't youread it?--Hornetman16(Talk) 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I took this as being an agreement, though I think that it could be made clearer, and I think that Hornetman could have responded a little more politely to Riana. ElinorD (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite when I answered her if I wasn't I'm sorry!--Hornetman16(Talk) 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I genuinely didn't see it myself... Could you be a bit more explicit? Just say 'I agree' or whatever next to each point that Daniel brings up? ~ Riana ⁂ 21:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Final conditions

1) Drop the whole issue about the Cenafan16 (talk · contribs) account. You're not fooling anyone, least of all me, and continual denials is bordering on disruption. I'm willing to forget about it now that you have owned up to it.

2) Change your signature to something readable. Not custom backgrounds, and ensure the text colour is not yellow or bright red or similar.

3) Create a userpage in your userspace, and let myself and others (or one of the above list of people, Riana, Alison, Deskana, etc.) review it and remove anything which is prohibited per WP:USER. If you simply add more stuff to it which crosses over the line after the content is readded to your main userpage, then it will simply been deleted and protected again.

4) Don't even bring up anyone elses' religion when you speak with anyone. It's uncivil, and many times a form of a personal attack. If you don't stop, you will be indefinitely blocked.

5) Don't mention your own religion except for the small mention on your userpage. Don't bring it up in discussion; we don't care what religion you or anyone else is, and it makes no difference to improving the encyclopedia.

6) Agree not to create any more sockpuppet accounts, or edit from your IP logged out. I will block you indefinitely if you do so again.

7) Pay attention to anyone who helps you by adopting you. They're here to help you.

8) Spend more time improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to editing userspace.

9)Do not make legal threats. If there is illegal content on Wikipedia, the WP:OFFICE will take care of it. You will not.

10) If someone asks you to stop doing something, ask your adopting user (or one of the above list of people, Riana, Alison, Deskana, etc.) before you do it anyway, to be sure you aren't breaking policy.

Say 'agree' or 'disagree', for the record, below. Daniel 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, (trying to be polite) I already stated this above.--Hornetman16(Talk) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here; new sig.'''[[user:Hornetman16|Hornet]]man[[user_talk:Hornetman16|16]]''' which produces:

Hornetman16

There, problem solved. ~ Wikihermit 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx the new signature...Happy 4th of July, people!!! Oh if I disappere for a little I'll be on my way home cause I'm at my Grandparents now.--Hornetman16 02:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)