User talk:Trulexicon

Welcome!

Hello, Trulexicon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Tom 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Larry Sanger. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for repeated edit warring. When you return please engage in more attempts to discuss the matters and not simply blindly revert. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were repeatedly editing warring and were warned. 3RR is not an entitlement. JoshuaZ 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at User talk:QuackGuru

In your edit summary here, you mentioned that it is "against wikipedia policy to delate content from one's own talk page". In fact, the opposite is true. Per WP:USER, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages..."

I'm going to caution you to take care when quoting policy to other users, especially those with whom you are involved in content disputes. Caknuck 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep that in mind.--Trulexicon 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

repeated BLP violations added to Larry Sanger article

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. [1][2][3][4] Mr.Guru talk 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was Reared NOT raised....--Trulexicon (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word reared is not clear. Raised is clear and easy to understand. The word reared can be confused with raising an animal.[5]

Co-founder is heavily referenced per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. There are also historical references such as The New York Times reference.[6] Quack Guru 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Larry Sanger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Sanger's role as co-founder has been discussed at length and is a key aspect of his notability.

Sanger is not an animal. He was not reared. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing pattern

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to the neutral point of view and disruptive editing policies for editors, which it appears you have not followed in your edits to Larry Sanger and Wikipedia article. Please use the talk page to gain consensus among editors. Thanks, Quack Guru 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, the quacker there seems to think I'm you.[7] I reckon squeakbox & slimvirgin & the many other editors who take exception to his complete disregard of npov policy are all you too. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if the quacker and bramlet are sock-buddies though. No reply please, am retiring again now that I've had a refresher course on wiki-nonsense. 65.96.171.231 (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed...<Shakes Head repeatedly> this article is one of the most poorly written articles I have encountered here.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment was inappropriate and uncivil. The article did not fail. It passed. Please consider deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the disruptive comment. Thanks for your understanding, I hope. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was marked as minor but was not a minor edit. QuackGuru 05:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice

It is nice to see you edit others articles unrelated to the co-founder isssue. Take a look at the Quackwatch article and feel free to jump into the debate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! I like it you are expanding your horizons. The chiropractic article is great for the both of us. Please contribute to the talk page if you like. I like to know your expert opinion. Thanks for your contributiuons. You are very much appreciated. QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you return soon and help with the chiropractic article. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in participating in other articles such as chiropractic. You can give it a try. QuackGuru 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Nice to see you are back from your vacation. When you edit, please read the references and edit according to the sources presented. Assistant founder is WP:OR. QuackGuru 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You appear to be engaging in edit war at Larry Sanger. Please be careful not to make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period or your editing privileges could be revoked. QuackGuru 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an edit war, its an attempt at compromise with an eye toward Jimbo's side. --Trulexicon (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is "an eye toward Jimbo's side" NPOV? QuackGuru 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really if you wish to be technical (NPOV is very subjective). Jimbo founded this website though: his servers helped start it up and he had the capital and the innovation behind the start up. We should consider his side of the story first and formost.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we consider his side of the story first and formost when we should editing according to the references and NPOV. QuackGuru 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's the Godking--Trulexicon (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wikipedia policy does Godking fit into the picture here. QuackGuru 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its his servers basically; I've heard the term used before--Trulexicon (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We edit according to policy and not who you think is the owner of this place. According to what source it is his servers anyhow. QuackGuru 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They belong to the foundation now but I remember reading somewhere when they started this project it was his servers. --Trulexicon (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is was Sanger's idea to start Wikipedia as a feeder project for Nupedia. QuackGuru 06:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Jimbo's Captial helped make it happen.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money is not eveything. Love for a great idea can make it happen. The idea came first. QuackGuru 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know but Jimbo is still here Larry left. --Trulexicon (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is here or not here is irrelevant to this debate. QuackGuru 06:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how viewed Sanger by the way...as an animal it was an intential edit the word reared.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reared can be confused with an animal. QuackGuru 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that! that was my point, I view him as an Animal--Trulexicon (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an animal. QuackGuru 07:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he looks like one. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He looks like a human being. We are all human beings. QuackGuru 08:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

Thanks for accepting my invitation to edit chiropractic. I have a quick question. Where in the source does it support the claim tends to focus. QuackGuru 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tends sounds like a good word because there are chiropracters who believe in alternative medicine.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But where in the source does it support the claim of "tends" to focus. QuackGuru 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere that I seen (having read the article fully) --Trulexicon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You made a change without reading the references first. Is that about right? QuackGuru 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but its not like I'm an expert on Chiroparctic medicine though; I little about the fuckin science.--Trulexicon (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by chiropractic medicine. Is it medicine or what? QuackGuru 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just my lingo...I'll call anything dealing with medical field ______ medicine..." e.g. Neuro-Skeletal Medicine...--Trulexicon (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. But we still must edit according to what the sources say. QuackGuru 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Trulexicon (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! QuackGuru 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

I hope to see you return soon to Wikipedia. I think we can further improve Wikipedia. QuackGuru 06:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:QuackGuru, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the warning above, I'm issuing a separate warning for your edits to Larry Sanger. I don't know if you saw the warning for WP:3RR on the article's talk page, but regardless of 3RR, I will block you for disruption on a BLP if you continue to edit against consensus on the article. A relevant discussion you may be interested in, which links to about a dozen or so other relevant discussions is here. Drop by my talk page if you wish to discuss this further. Lara 15:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Continued abuse of the Wikipedia email feature to send harassing emails will result in your access to the feature being revoked along with your editing privileges. Lara 12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Sorry. --Trulexicon (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is a thread relating to your continual reversions of the co-founder issue at WP:ANI Viridae ^Talk 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trulexicon

To address the intermittent but ongoing disruption you have caused on founder-related articles, I'd like to offer you a chance to voluntarily diversify your editing into more worthwhile areas under the following conditions:

You should propose any edits relating to Wales/Sanger founder issues on the relevant talk-pages for discussion before making them (note that this is not a carte-blanche to tendentiously make use of argumentation; Wikipedia is not a battleground)
You must follow the zero-revert rule on all articles in this area - this means no reverts to any edits that are not obvious vandalism
You must respect the established consensus; if you intend to challenge it, you should use the proper channels to do so
Any further disruption or breaches of the above restrictions on either the articles or talk-pages concerned will lead to to blocks on your account of increasing length.

The alternatives to the above are likely to be either a community-imposed topic-ban, which would prevent you from editing any articles in this area completely, or an indefinite blocking of your account. You have made some good edits in other areas though, so I hope that if we can get past this issue you can remain a member of our community and apply your talents in areas far more valuable to our readership. EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for disruption

You caught my attention today by edit warring on Autofellatio. I was going to give you a final warning for disruption ( WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:EDITWAR ), but then came across your repeated claim that you consider Larry Sanger an animal and not a human being ( [8], [9] ), and that you consider the topic ban on him invalid.

You evidently are not here to build an encyclopedia, merely to disrupt. As such, I am imposing an indefinite block on your account. Your participation is not welcome if you're going to participate in this manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with indefblock; I was going to do the same myself after your response to my above. EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Larry Sanger

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Larry Sanger. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Sanger. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]