Welcome!

Hello, Nate2357, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

August 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your notification to me

You are not required to notify me that you have responded to my comment. Only the person being reported at AN/I -- you -- is required to be notified by the person initiating the report -- in this case, User:Dougweller.

A word to the wise: it's clear from your behavior and your comments that you really have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works, or what its policies are. If you're interested in sticking around and contributing to the encyclopedia, you're really starting off on entirely the wrong foot. The best thing would be to do a little more listening and a lot less assuming and proclaiming about things you don't understand. Edit quietly and productively and learn how things work and what's expected from the material accepted into our articles, and you'll be fine. Keep on as you are, and I can predict with near certainty that you'll be blocked from editing -- maybe not immediately, but at some point soon.

That's my advice, do with it what you will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Notification

Please read WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Based on your understanding of those two policies, you will need to correct your behaviour and improve on your statements on WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify something here: using multiple accounts the way that you have been is contrary to the policy on the use of alternate accounts. You must choose one and only one. The other must be blocked. If you continue to edit from both accounts, then both accounts will be blocked. If you choose to create any more accounts, they will be blocked as per WP:EVADE, and your primary account will be blocked indefinitely. Time to start making serious choices. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Please explain this edit on the ANI discussion.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to switch accounts abusively, as this name and as Nate5713. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 15:41, 10 November 2010 (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).

Nate2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I prepared a speech, but seeing that I have a limited audience I will be brief. I never intended, nor do I have a memory of, using two accounts to my advantage or disadvantage. However, in order to regain my editing ability, I will, for now on, only use the account of Nate2357. I am sure that I can be of some benefit to Wikipedia, but what is itching at me right now is that the article Ancestry of Jesus is now fully protected, so I must get there to open a discussion. That is just one of the many ways, I'm sure, I can at Service to this Encyclopedia.Nate2357 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A speech is quite unnecessary, however some honesty would be appreciated. I've just run a checkuser on your account, and have Confirmed that User:Nate5713 and User:Kelismyhero have both edited from the computer you're currently using; in the case of the other Nate, you both edit similar topics and exhibit similar behavior; for example, using THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION rather than the {{underconstruction}} tag (this account other account). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 10 November 2010 (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.

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).

Nate2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will get strait to the point: Yes, I am both Nate5713 and Nate2357, the numerals are all sequential prime numbers. I was never hiding anything, I was always freely telling people who I was. I was under the (naiive) impression that as long as I never used my two accounts to my advantage, I was not sockpuppetting. If that was in fact a wrong impression and that the very nature of having two accounts is illegal, then I very eagerly promise to only use the account of Nate2357. The account, "Kel is my hero" was created by my sister, but of course I understand that that is no excuse, so I promise not to use her account either. After I settle the whole Ancestry of Jesus thing, I was intending to check the debate on Biblical longevity, to see which side followed the policy better. After that, I was intending on adding references to the article Peleg, from scientific papers and a couple of interesting books. I have always intended on making Wikipedia better, not worse.--Nate2357 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per discussion and comments below. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (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.

There are a very limited number of reasons why someone would be allowed to use more than once account, all listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. From what I can see, none of them apply here. On the contrary, you've had a number of users asking you to stop using two accounts and you didn't. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. I was in the wrong by having multiple accounts and I apologize. The reason that seems to fit closest to my situation is a compromised account, though slightly different. I lost my password, but Firefox automatically remembers my password for one computer. Whenever I use (or "used" as the case may arise) a different computer, I was forced to use a different account where I remembered the password. Whenever I use my regular computer, however, I Firefox remembers the old password and I use(d) that. Since, as you say, that is not a legitimate reason, then I guess I was in the wrong after all.--Nate2357 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having Firefox remember passwords, then I'm not inclined to unblock you at all - that's fully insecure, and inappropriate for this site. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user engaging in poor security practices isn't a reason to block someone (or leave them blocked); if that were the case, everyone using this userbox would be indef'd by now. For a user with no advanced permissions, there's really no need to worry about account security, except that you'll be held responsible should your account be compromised. That's not the case here, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote - Firefox passwords can be retrieved trough Tools => Options => Security (tab) => Saved passwords (button) => Show passwords (button). Unless you set a master password that is - but it wouldn't fill in passes without entering that anyway. I agree with Hersfold though - it is folly to assume that no other user doesn't save his or her password or writes them down like this (Though it is fully unacceptable for admins / checkusers / bureaucrats). That being said a user is fully responsible for his or her account, so IF it is compromised, "being hacked" is not an excuse. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I am still blocked? I need to know. If I am still being reviewed, then fine, I learned my lesson. If nobody has any intention on unblocking me then good riddens. --Nate2357 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellooooo! boy who can't edit here, hang me or release me, just stop chatting about it and decide.--Nate2357 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate: How can you possibly post a rant like the one below, and then, three minutes later, ask if you're gonna be unblocked or not? I take it you don't see that by threatening to resort to disruptive sockpuppetry if you're not unblocked ("I will get my revenge"), you wrote your own ticket to oblivion. The probability is that your second unblock request is going to be denied, and, in addition, your access to the talk page will be removed as well.

If you're interested, the pathway to having your account restored is to admit that you screwed up and pledge that you won't do it again. If you're sincere, you'll probably be given another chance, albeit on a very short leash, to try and contribute positively to the project. But -- don't say it if you don't mean it, because if you carry on editing as you have been, you'll likely be indef blocked immediately. People will be watching what you're doing, and will know it as soon as you break your probation.

I'm not selling you a bill of goods, this is the way things work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Does it! This is the last straw

I was hoping to shout this at a more pubic domain, but I have at this point been silenced on almost every front, this being the last. Wikipedia has never been a democracy, yes, it was founded on a small island in the Internetic Ocean by the two benevolent Kings James of Whales and Lawrence of Sanger. They saw to it that every inhabitant of Wikipedia was treated with equal dignity and given equal opportunity. Then the poor King Lawrence became dead to Wikipedia a year later, his last words being that all Wikipedians should always be given the Benefit of the doubt, that they should build each other up, and should throw out all manner of vandals. But as soon as Lawrence of Sanger passed on, there came a population explosion in Wikipedia, millions of editors pored themselves on the great library every day, every one of them having a completely different bias. The most organized group was led by David of Merrill and Alexandar of Bolton. This political movement focused primarily on removing any kind of creationism from Wikipedia. Fortunately due to the overwhelming number of religious users, they failed for the most part. But that did not stop them from relentlessly trying to maintain dominance over the continent. At this point, King James of Whales realized that he could not possibly maintain Wikipedia alone, so he set up a more complex system. First he started promoting ordinary users of outstanding skills to a whole new office that he created: the Administrator. These administrators had great power, they could, and still can I now experience, prevent great districts from being changed, delegate out what sources are good and what are evil, and even the ability to order the death of a user with a single finger. Most importantly, these office holders had the unique ability to create policy pages, the districts of Wikipedia which made an enforced laws. Thus they had and still have the ability to decide what Wikipedia is. Over time, there were so many administrators that King James was once again overwhelmed, so he set up an automated system so that any user can be promoted if they are favored by pre-existing Administrators. It was a simple matter, therefore, for David and Alex to get there movement recognized, by getting members of there elite promoted who then promote their comrades. in such a way the entire fate of Wikipedia fell squarely in the hands of these anti-creationist POV's. It is of this group that came up with Original Research, Sock puppetry, and other such nonsense. It is of this group who orchestrated my accusations and, ultimately, my house arrest. They are no doubt responsible for any kind of illogical, vandalistic behavior that goes on to this day. Now, neither David of Merrill nor Aexandar of Bolton ever intended that their group would go this far. They probably have no idea where there disciples of disciples are doing right now. I have nothing against those users aside from the fact that they started it. But those fools who think that they silenced me: Doug, Ben, Ken, Iron, Aussie, and the like, not all administrators but all who think that they can get away with POV by threats, reverts, and blocks. They better all get used to watching there pages, because I will be back, even if I have to change my account, and I will have my revenge. --Nate2357 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate: Perhaps you should consider the possibility that if many people are telling you that you are wrong, and nobody is telling you that you are right, then maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong.

In any case, Wikipedia has no "anti-creationist" bias, per se, it has strong (indeed mandated) bias in favor of recognized, verifiable facts. Because it requires facts to be supported by reliable sources, it's always going to reflect the mainstream, and people on the fringes who can't bring themselves to accept mainstream ideas are always going to be dissatisfied by the encyclopedia, and perceive it as being biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, policy pages are not created by administrators, they evolve out of the editing of many ordinary editors such as yourself and myself, who make changes, revert edits, have conflicts, discuss things, and, hopefully, reach a consensus. Administrators are trusted users who are charged with enforcing those policies, and, sometimes, interpreting them in novel situations. They're also volunteers, and human: they make mistakes, they get defensive, they zig when they should zag, and they disagree amongst themselves with regularity. On the really basic things, though, they generally agree, and the policies you've been violating are pretty basic ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward

Nate, here's the reality: as a blocked user, you may not create new accounts as per WP:EVADE. So, right now we have 2 issues: first, you were using 2 accounts to edit the same articles, contrary to WP:SOCK. So now, both accounts are blocked. The second issue issue is that you are violating Wikipedia content policies by creating WP:FORK articles because you don't like the existing ones. Originally you were blocked for one offence, now it's two.

If you were to create another account - or edit using an IP address anonymously, you will likely be WP:BANed from Wikipedia. So, pick one of your two accounts - if you have forgotten your password for it, there's a way to request a fix for that if you have enabled email. Stick to the one account, forever. Disavow the other. Scramble it's password and forget it exists.

Next, start reading Wikipedia policy - especially the ones that have been brought to your attention during your editing. A failure to act according to policy will lead to additional blocks.

I am certain that you have things to add to the project - but you must follow core policies, or you will not be permitted to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that my block was not designed to prevent you, the person in the chair, from editing Wikipedia. Rather it was to stop you from using multiple accounts in violation of guidelines, such as using two accounts to advance the same argument. The rule, with some exceptions (such as a clearly linked account without advanced access for public computers), is one human, one account. Courcelles 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only can I not use multiple accounts, but I can't edit Wikipedia at all, no matter how little I use each account.--Nate2357 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you have read my statement above (and WP:GAB), you'll know how to get back to editing. Until then, you have plenty of time to read policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and the rest of the policy, and I now know what is truly going on. I am sick and tired of kowtowing and submitting, playing within other people's rules and dancing to other people's tune. I will never submit, I will never participate in such a Wiki if it means that I will have to continuously abandon faith and logic,

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).

Nate2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since your majesty and your Administratorships demand a simple reply, I will answer: Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reasoning, not by Admins or Policies who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the divine Logos. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I will not and cannot recant. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me.Nate2357 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is quite simple:

You may not have multiple account par SOCK, except for the reasons that are listed in the same policy.
As BWilkins already mentioned, Wikipedia follows What reliable sources state, which means that mainstream believes are generally present in article's, rather then displaying non-mainline ideas. Whether or not you agree with the mainline viewpoint is irrelevant (The exact same goes for my opinions on any subject)

Both of these issues have already been explained in detail.

Furthermore i would point out that the rules have been formulated over the years by the community trough searching concensus, and therefor they have to be followed by everyone. In this regard admins are simply community-appointed users that are trusted to execute these rules correctly. Hence, Admins should hold themselves to higher standards when it comes to following rules, and admins who pass the line are whistled back or may see their adminship revoked again, by the community.

Initially i was in favor of unblocking you par WP:AGF, provided that you limited yourself to one account, and collaborated with other editors to improve existing article's rather then forking new ones. Hence, the best way to reach WP:NPOV is by pushing on an article from every side after all. However, Your above rant and comments such as They better all get used to watching there pages, because I will be back, even if I have to change my account, and I will have my revenge and I am sick and tired of kowtowing and submitting, playing within other people's rules and dancing to other people's tune. signal me you are not here to edit collaboratively, and as of such i am denying this unblock request. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:28, 11 November 2010 (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.

For the last time, I have already read WP:GAB and have no expectation of being unblocked.

Note that misuse of the unblock request procedure may result in the removal of your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block.

Good, I will finally be rid of all this trouble.Nate2357 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]