User talk:Hohohahaha

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Re: Your message

Sorry, I have reverted again. The reference used is not a reliable source, and another user agrees with me on this point. To answer your question, no - I am not this sfacts (despite claims by Simon DM.) And no, I do not even know who the person is. I had tried to create a user account, but within minutes of doing so, found myself blocked from editing. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you appeal the block or just circumvent it? --Simon D M (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to appeal it. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you are a special case for whom WP policy does not apply? --Simon D M (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...And blocking user's accounts without evidence or peer review is different how? 124.168.176.97 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok well.... you have acknowledged that you were blocked and are circumventing that block. That's kind of a big no-no. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Until it can be explained why I have been banned each time I create a new user account, I will continue to do so, editing using different ip addresses. I see no reason why I should have to justify myself rather than those who blocked me for no reason and without supporting evidence. 124.168.176.97 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do as you wish and by doing so and openly declaring that you are doing so.... puts you outside the laws of the project... and gives people to right to revert all your edits. Hohohahaha (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion with WP:PROD

Point taken on desiring documentation of secondary sources. Done. If you're going to consider using a policy like WP:PROD again in the future, you should read it first:

"Articles that:

• Have previously been proposed for deletion
• Have previously been undeleted
• Have been discussed on AfD or MfD

are not candidates for {{prod}}."

Thought Adjuster already had an AfD and was kept. You should also read the policy WP:DELETE, which states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." This was an easy thing to add and requests like this for secondary sources should be done on the talk page and / or by adding an appropriate template message to the top of the article. Wazronk (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wazronk, I didn't know that about prods... though to be honest if the AFD was linked to the talk page, I am doubtful that I would have prod'ed it. Do you have a link for it? Hohohahaha (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see how you could have missed it if you just looked at the top of the discussion page for the standard post AfD template and link. That wasn't done. Instead, look under the discussion page for the topic "Articles for Deletion debate". That was from a period of active conflicts between True Believers on the main article and myself, and I'd cut some of the excesses (non-NPOV warts and all) and moved them to the TA article. The article then attracted well deserve scrutiny for not meeting NPOV, although, similar to your request with your PROD, it wasn't actually that big of deal to fix.

On another note, I noticed you took out a paragraph as OR. Actually that is almost entirely a summary of how the book itself describes the concept in relation to other religious ideas. It's easy for it to come back into the article of course, but just as a courtesy in the future, when there are editors around who know the topic and the sources, you can use {{cite}} tags to draw their attention to material you think is problematic instead of simply assuming and deleting. Wazronk (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I did notice the afd on the talk page later on.

I am torn about the cite tag... I have used it, and 90% of the time a citation doesn't show up.

SA is pretty determined to erase those pages, the only way they will probably survive is with A LOT of inline citations. I'll be around- and thanks for opening dialogue. Hohohahaha (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you Levine?

Are you User:Levine2112? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.

First off, I play fair and I keep my word. So I am gong to refer you to my userpage and let you answer your own question. :)

Has the account Hohohahaha and Levine edited the same page within a period of 2 months? If so, I am not him.

Is Levine still actively editing? If so, I am not him, my main account is 99.9% dead.

I will give you a freebie- although I have seen your name while operating from my main account I have never interacted with you nor worked on a page with you with my old main. Hohohahaha (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sfacets, Sahaja Yoga pages etc and semi protection

I can't see much harm accruing from semi-protection on any of the troubled pages but it'll save a lot of hassle. The vandal/s need to just take a little time off and find something else to invest his/their energies into. Really it's a kindness. --Simon D M (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should establish wether I am that user or not before you start on this road. And classifying my removal of your continued harassment as vandalism is laughable. 124.168.155.244 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You said you were not him, and I have chosen to believe you.

You are a blocked user. Blocked users are not allowed to edit here. What would you call your participation here? Hohohahaha (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually he said he is not 'sfacts'. When asked if he was 'Sfacets' he 'refused to dignify the question with an answer. --Simon D M (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's low. 124.168.155.244 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe me, and you really want to help, then please investigate how it is that an admin can block a user on a whim or vague suspicion? 124.168.155.244 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just appeal and stop wasting innocent people's time. --Simon D M (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)