User talk:MalleusMaleficarum1486

Welcome!

Hello, MalleusMaleficarum1486, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incel and "love-shyness"

In the event you are familiar with Bobvancleef38, please read WP:MEAT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

Your unsigned posts at the AFD have made mincemeat of the discussion. As mentioned above by Sinebot, please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have your talk page watchlisted; to keep discussion together, you can respond here (responding on my talk splits the discussion). You should also stop referring to other editors as "lying"; you could be blocked for personal attacks if you continue to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I shouldn't have used that word and did so in anger. I have no evidence that this person is lying. But in any case that person person is making certain demonstrably incorrect statements. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not offend me as much as it amused me, to be entirely honest. The whole assertion that because I was in favour of deleting the article, I must be a member of "feminist and atheist organizations" was rather ridiculous and, frankly, uncalled for. You seemed to heavily imply there was a hidden agenda at work, and that this was the reason for my standpoint. Anyway, what happened happened and it's fine with me. I said my piece and will not continue being involved in the discussion from this point forward. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are calling editors "extremely dishonest and lazy"; please review our WP:NPA page, and please discuss content, not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling them dishonest and lazy but their arguments. It's obvious that the editor Mystery Bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MysteryBug is nothing but a throwaway account presenting false one sentence arguments to facilitate a deletion of something he/she doesn't agree with on ideological grounds.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, did she not do exactly the same you did? Both of you came to wikipedia for the sole purpose of arguing either in favour or against deleting these articles, it seems. Both of you are allowed to, she no less then you. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely the case when it comes to that editor. As for me, I never denied that I opened this account to argue against some proposed deletions (which, of course, doesn't mean I won't go on editing something else, as I like the rigor and honesty of most people here) but while I try to make reasonable arguments that editor made two short post containing incorrect statements that nobody should take at face value. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People should decide for themselves whether or not they attach any value or weight her arguments. Or yours, or mine, for that matter. The discussion will continue further for a few more days, after which the articles will be either deleted, redirected or merged. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this is what will happen? In any case, people should absolutely do that but it is obvious what that account is about. It states incorrect information and expects it to be taken at face value, even some don't even agree with common sense- for example the idea that involuntary celibate people can't get dates when it is obvious that unsuccessful dates could still mean involuntary celibacy. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to write "or will be kept", as that is also a possible outcome. I have seen an administrator also voting in favour of keeping the article. There have been several arguments and points raised. Anyway - this whole article is an article on a non-issue really. Not-getting-laid is not a phenomenon worthy of having it's own article. It is, if anything, the plot of teenage movies. Something a young man might experience in highschool, only to grow over it later. It does not warrant it's own article. And this has nothing to do with any feminist-atheist conspiracy as you imply in your comments here on wikipedia and on your personal blog. It's all so very far-fetched. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you just wrote is frightening. Not only do you define involuntary celibacy incorrectly (I have no idea why you think it is about nothing else than not having sex) but you deny its existence in so many people who are much older than highschool. I have seen nine people take their lives because of this problem. Their deaths, studies on involuntary celibacy or experiences of people suffering from it are not plots of teenage movies. Studies on incel don't talk about teenagers. To claim it is a non-issue is just horrific. It absolutely has to do with an agenda to deny that this problem exists and your words here confirm this. It an agenda by certain very irresponsible and violent people to scam people in charge of deciding on this here on Wikipedia. This isn't about a small number of involuntary celibates being against this article - this is about a small number of highly aggressive people presenting fake information, which I routinely debunk, and pushing for deletion on ideological grounds. Also, when making complaints about me you're once again saying demonstrably incorrect information - that I am arguing for something on my blog when I am just speculating or that I use strawmen. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, man, you for real here? People killing themselves because they can't get laid? Wow... I don't believe it for even a second. You are pretending this is some sort of malady on par with cancer or aids, some sort of crippling condition affecting young men and driving them to their death. And then you even say there is a hidden agenda at play to "discredit your little movement", wow. Just, wow. This is really really out there man. Very out of touch with reality. People who commit suicide have GENUINE MENTAL ISSUES. Pre-existing conditions. They have their own reasons and problems that lead them to do such a thing. To insinuate the reason for their deaths is "because they cant have sex" is incredibly silly and, quite frankly, very disrespectful to the victims of suicide and their relatives. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another page by this editor, for what it's worth. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is over. You are constantly repeating an incorrect (or at least not agreed upon) definition of involuntary celibacy, calling this problem "my little movement" (which, again, is as bizzare as calling water deprivation a "movement"), implying that the inability to have romantic or sexual relations isn't a problematic situation (despite the fact that it did cause their suicides and some of them wrote about involuntary celibacy being a reason) while calling me disrespectful, as if I am the one who denies their pain even after their death. These people killed themselves because they could no longer stand the pain you deny. To pretend to respect them is quite perverse. You even go as far as to say that involuntary celibacy doesn't exist, which is not only obviously incorrect and puzzling but some other editors have expressed their amazement at such an unreasonable belief. All of this might indicate that you possibly even have cognitive problems. Please don't talk to me ever again on this talk page. I will continue debunking your incorrect information but I have no more desire to communicate with you about anything else. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting style is still making mincemeat of discussions. The correct way to thread your responses to a post above yours is to add one more colon than the number of colons in the post above yours; please see WP:THREAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do that from now on. I am sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, multiple

I have asked you at least twice now:

Please confine your discussions to content and avoid commenting on the contributor; you might also have a look at WP:TEND and WP:BATTLEGROUND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will read all of these but please note that in your second example I charachterized the person's arguments "dishonest and lazy", not the person itself.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MalleusMaleficarum1486, after seeing what SandyGeorgia wrote and your follow-up comments, I am writing regarding the Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY pillar in my capacity as an administrator on Wikipedia. The essence of civility is maintaining respect for the people you're interacting with on Wikipedia, even if you disagree with their views. This can be tough to do, believe me I know, especially if you really don't respect their views: it's easy to think, 'You hold an idiotic view therefore you must be an idiot too.'

I also know that on Wikipedia it's easy to get away with hurling insults in someone's direction by insulting their actions or views instead of the person. You can't say 'You're an idiot and a jerk' but saying 'You write idiotic things a jerk would write' gets you through an WP:NPA loophole. However doing that doesn't meet with the core civility principle of maintaining respect, so please don't do it. If you do it, whatever message you were trying to get across will be totally lost, and if your goal was really to try to convince someone of something, you will have failed.

Please contact me on my User Talk if you have any questions. Zad68 14:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Zad's message above, and as an uninvolved, completely disinterested editor from the topic in question, having only briefly glanced at the AFD discussion that was about to heat up something quite fierce, I can assure you that, whatever the outcome of that AFD, whether it be keep, merge or delete, the world will not end tomorrow and Wikipedia will not collapse because it has one less article in its database. If things turn out for the worst-case scenario, that is the delete option, in the future there may still be enough third-party, reliable sources created to cover the subject that can supplant our Verifiability and Notability criteria enough to warrant a standalone article, and based on the changes that happen then Wikipedia can change its mind. Also, since you've never had a formal introduction to our policy pages, I've left our standard welcome message courtesy of the Welcoming Committee™ up above. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to reply to this without breaking the WP:AGF rule but I will try. My concern is hardly that Wikipedia will collapse. My concern is about something I will quote another editor for "Now what I am a little leery of is that I seem to remember this guy achieving some infamy via sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, mostly through other people espousing his work. I'm not saying that makes him non-notable, just that we should probably be prepared for some trolling here.";. This was written in another discussion but applies to the one I'm participating the most in. It's hard not to notice that various throwaway accounts and IP's are parroting disproved assertions with absolutely no regard to facts or sources in order to delete the article and this seems to be affecting certain respectable editors. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to back down in that AFD discussion, now. What needed to be said, has been said, too many times over. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I probably appear overzealous and thereby seem suspicious for a new account, which might in the end seem like I'm actually doing more harm than good in respect to what I want to do. But all my edits were in attempts of a reasonable discussion and correcting some people's incorrect information. I am not a scientist nor was I familiar with Wikipedia's policies (which I'm now slowly learning) but all of my edits were in nothing but good faith, even if they seemed to combative or seemed to break WP on tedious editing at times. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MalleusMaleficarum1486, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi MalleusMaleficarum1486! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits regarding involutary celibacy

MalleusMaleficarum1486, you are editing disruptively as a single-purpose account regarding "involuntary celibacy". Specifically you have been edit-warring to add unsourced content to Fleshlight and reverting content at Incel against consensus. This is your final warning. If these sorts of edits continue I will block you for disruptive editing. Zad68 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MalleusMaleficarum1486 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is completely unfounded. I will begin with first accusations I've received for breaking WP:AGF, WP:TEND or WP:BATTLEGROUND. I was warned about all of these yet all I did was comment on the Talk page of Involuntary celibacy and said that a person who claims that involuntary celibacy happens nowhere but in movies can't have good faith at all. This same person, who reported me now, was constantly arguing for deletion of the Involuntary celibacy article and is now arguing for deletion of the Involuntary part of the celibacy article, just as he tried to redirect the term "not getting any" to the article, which was deemed against the policy and reversed. My edits, which were deemed disruptive, were the following ones: 1. I edited the part where he deletes the mention of Involuntary celibacy in a Fleshlight article. After being warned that Involuntary celibacy part of the Celibacy article doesn't mention a Fleshlight I no longer edited. I didn't know that this wasn't mentioned and thought it's part of that person's agenda. 2. I edited his redirect of the word "incel" to an obscure drug as the word is commonly used as an abbreviation for involuntary celibacy. After reading more of the discussion I made a double redirect to both terms. This was deleted so I didn't push it any more. 3. I deleted that person's talk on my page because I didn't want to communicate with him - I had no idea if this was against the rules or not. I committed no other offenses I was warned for and never attempted to consciously make disruptive edits. While I may seem like a SPA now and I did register because of that article I have no agenda about it and always tried to argue my edits reasonably. Also, I've intended to remain on this account and edit other articles. Moreover, please note that I've already been given a final warning and made absolutely no edits after this, just to be permanently banned? I object to this and think it extremely unfair. Administrator's grasp of the facts seems very faulty in this case. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Attempting to justify personal attacks and edit warring does not strengthen your request. In fact, it highlights your lack of perspective on the big picture here: we're here to build the encyclopedic sum of all human knowledge. We leave our opinions and ideologies at the door and create articles based on verifiable fact. ... You can say you're editing and speaking from a NPOV all day long if you want, but actions speak louder than words. And right now your actions fail to show how you're a net positive for this project and community. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.