User talk:Humanpublic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

quitting this facade for the promotion of Christianity, and the egos of admins. Humanpublic (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DIVA (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; also I forgot WP:IDONTCARE Face-wink.svg Basket Feudalist 17:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Spot on![edit]

Yep. Basket Feudalist 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Facade?[edit]

"...facade for the promotion of Christianity"? You've got to be kidding. This website has been alleged to be controlled by atheists, homosexuals, religionists, porn-purveyors, left-wing radicals, right-wing radicals, any ethnic group you can name, and even the "circumcision cabal" (I kid you not), and a host of other lobbyists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But Bugs, doesn't the exclusion of one's fringe and unsourced personal agenda obviously means that the site is intentionally and systematically supporting the very thing that one is blindly biased against. I mean, that's what "two wrongs make a right" means, doesn't it? I don't know why we have WP:GEVAL. </WP:sarc> Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd echo what Bugs has said – take a look at WT:WikiProject Conservatism for example. And then there are the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE WP:ERA warriors (and music genre changing warriors)... Humanpublic, I'll offer the advice that you need to be somewhat thick-skinned in order to prosper here. So maybe wait a few days or weeks and come back with a fresh perspective. Wikipedia is a big tent and I'm sure there are far more like–minded folks around here than you might imagine. And Ian, I'd say questioning the resurrection of Jesus is hardly a fringe theory – even if limited to English speakers only...but I understand your point. Mojoworker (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Mojoworker, merely "questioning the resurrection of Jesus" (which I completely grant many scholars do and that our articles should not be written to deny that) is not what Humanpublic has been up to. He's been fighting against the very possibility that there existed a Jewish apocalyptic teacher (common in Roman Judea) and possible Messiah claimant (also not uncommon at the time) named Yeshua (an extremly common name during the time) who might have been heard by individuals who developed the early Christian church and had been the inspiration for the Jesus worshiped in Christianity. He's pretty much lumped in agnostic and atheist scholars like Bart D. Ehrman in with Christian theologians in his continued insistend that there's no true Scot- I mean scholarly support for the historical existence of Jesus (not Jesus's divinity or humanity, but mere existence). Even Robert M. Price, who denies the historical existence of Jesus, admits that the idea Jesus didn't exist is a fringe view not supported by the majority of scholarship. Humanpublic has also accused many users of being Christian POV-pushers (as if only Christians claimed Jesus existed) for simply not helping his crusade to present that fringe theory as a proven fact in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
A single-purpose account, by definition, lacks broader exposure to wikipedia, and thus assumes that whatever barrier he's run into on a particular subject somehow reflects the general situation. As an example, someone with an axe to grind against a particular company will accuse neutral POV editors of "working for" that company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest all of you stop using this talk page as a forum for discussing HP (as well as other unrelated topics) in HP's absence. Give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Vanishing[edit]

If you wish to vanish, please follow the instructions here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

brilliant Humanpublic (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaving the wiki?[edit]

You have requested that your account be vanished, however since doing so you have continued to involve yourself in several ongoing content disputes. An editor who vanishes is expected to refrain from involvement in the issues which led them to request vanishing. If you have changed your mind and wish to continue editing Christianity-related articles, you should contact the bureaucrats and withdraw your request for vanishing. If you still wish to be vanished, you should probably refrain from entering new disputes like the one on Talk:Argument from silence. -- LWG talk 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. I read the page on vansihsing, which said if I didn't want to provide my email, I should use the public page.
  2. No link was given to a public page.
  3. I left a msg for a "functionary" as instructed.
  4. The functionary said he couldn't do anything. Another editor emailed a "bureacrat."
  5. A bureaucrat left a msg on my talk page, referring me to #1.
  6. I don't have any reason to think bureaucrats are processing any request. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you, however, still wish to have your account vanished, or do you no longer wish for this to be done? Either way, I would be glad to help you find the appropriate people to get it done/canceled. As things stand, nobody knows if you still intend to leave. -- LWG talk 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm undecided. I'm still learning how Wikipedia works. I don't like how easy it is for editors like Jeppiz who know how to manipulate admins to manipulate admins. Humanpublic (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I strongly suggest that the very first step you take is to publicly announce that you are taking a break from editing controversial articles, and stick to your word on that. That will put you off your current trajectory which is almost certain to end in a block. Then, I suggest you devote some time to making minor, non-controversial edits to unrelated articles, and also familiarizing yourself with wiki culture. That is something I would be happy to help you with. Finally, I suggest you only return to controversial subjects like Christianity once you have built both some credibility as a good faith contributor and some experience in the kind of tact that is necessary to gain agreement when such wildly varying viewpoints are at play. As things stand, you are appearing as a one-issue editor who is only here to wage a crusade against perceived bias, and editors like that almost always get banned. If you have any questions about anything, do not hesitate to ask me. -- LWG talk 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
End in a block, without a single example of how I've violated an actual rule? I wouldn't be surprised. Humanpublic (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I will attempt to help you understand what behavior leads to a block when I have time for a longer discussion, but the immediate priority is to stop that from happening. You may want to look at the story of WalkerThrough, another editor who I worked with in the past. He was eventually banned under almost identical circumstances to yourself: he failed to heed warnings and continued to crusade against what he saw as a biased cabal of editors who manipulated admins to support their views. If you look through the discussions, you may even see some of the very same names who are currently giving you trouble. The kicker: WalkerThrough was a religious fundamentalist, and was mad that the article did not fully support the biblical account of Jesus. -- LWG talk 19:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I really have no idea what you're talking about. My last edits were not to a religious article. Just because Jeppiz says something in a complaint doesn't make it true. Please do some actual research before jumping to conclusions. I find it interesting that you came here having already taken sides on the issue, without even asking for my side. Thanks for the offer of "help" but I don't need help from editors who prejudge me. Humanpublic (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I have taken and will take no side on the content issues here (and as you said I have not yet fully examined them). I am attempting to take your side on the policy issue, to keep you from being banned like many other editors before you who have tried to fight bias without understanding how wiki disputes work. -- LWG talk 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism in History of the Jews in Spain[edit]

On a totally unrelated note, while looking at your edit history I noticed that you said almost a year ago that you believed this article was copy/pasted from another source. Did you have any idea of what the source was so we can look into copyright concerns? -- LWG talk 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember but I'll take a look. Of course, this violates my impending ban on Christianity-related subjects.Humanpublic (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
An impending ban is not a ban, and contributing constructively there will help you avoid the ban happening at all. -- LWG talk 00:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

This message is to inform you that you have been indefinitely banned from editing articles related to faith and religion, broadly construed, as per the WP:AN discussion. King of ♠ 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does "related to faith and religion broadly construed" mean? Looks like a setup to accuse him of something in the future. That was nothing but a lynch mob. Strangesad (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
How do I appeal? And what does "indefinite" mean anyway? There were a lot of false statements made in that discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Indefinite doesn't mean "infinite" but it means "until no set date." Generally, appeals are made after 6 months to AN or if you do not want to wait six months then you proceed to Arbcom for an appeal. Generally these are only heard after extensive dispute resolution and they may not accept a case where they feel the community has already handled it so a careful argument must be made that rigorously adheres to Wikipedia policies.

@Strangesad: It generally means that any articles whose primary topic is related to faith is off limits. Such as topics about prominent religious figures, biographies, artifacts, scriptures/literature, ect (not an all inclusive list). However, it doesn't usually cover subjects where faith is not a prominent theme. Such as Mitt Romney where he is religious but the primary theme is politics. However, Humanpublic would be prohibited from making edits about his religious even though he could reasonable edit the rest of the article. It's a judgement call and it's generally best to stay far away from the line.--v/r - TP 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The atheist loses again . That process was a witch-hunt. I would have voted to oppose, had it not closed in less than 24 hours. Unlikely similar behavior for a different cause would have had a similar result. Welcome to the "neutrality" of Wikipedia. Minorview (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's hilarious when POV pushers dispute our neutrality when we don't slant toward their POV. Go ahead, Minorview, and spread to all of your friends how 'the atheist loses again' because the atheist couldn't handle not having things his own way. You're too 'smart' and 'realistic' to see your own arrogance and hypocrisy. Unless it's your viewpoint, it's not neutral. Hmm, who does that sound like? How about it sounds like every religion out there?--v/r - TP 18:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You prove the point. Examples of disruption used in this ban were accusing editors of things like "arrogance and hypocrisy." Minorview (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't help you there, try working with other editors instead of targeting articles of topics where you want to right great wrongs through the use of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 19:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? I have no interest in righting great wrongs. I have an interest in pointing out what the sources say. But the "arrogance and hypocrisy" of certain editors makes that contentious. Humanpublic (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I'm sorry for the cross-chat on your talk page.--v/r - TP 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking through the discussion again, I am confused about two things. First, the initial proposal was for articles related to Christianity. Some editors specified a vote regarding all matters of "religion broadly construed", others specified Christianity, and most just voted "support." I don't see how there can be a clear consensus for all articles on faith/religion, when the proposal was for Christianity, and most voters didn't specify. Second, the proposal said nothing about Talk pages, and the ban notice says nothing about Talk pages. Humanpublic (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This might be helpful. Talk pages are included in a topic ban automatically. I can't speak to the other issues, though my personal advice is that you're better off letting things rest for a while. -- LWG talk 00:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You must be kidding: "discussions or suggestions about ... related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (including edit summaries)" That is censorship, and the motive is religious. In that entire discussion, not a single example of any rule I've broken recently was provided. Humanpublic (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages...." This ban specifies articles. Humanpublic (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with LWG. I'd say it covers only editing the article and I've asked King of Hearts to clarify. However, as far as censorship goes, we're not a public government website. It's still a private website. You have no rights here.--v/r - TP 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:OWB item 1 on censorship should be remembered. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The way I read it, the policy states:

"For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
  • discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (including edit summaries), for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist."

So discussions that take place on talk pages related to weather are banned, unless the ban stated excluding talk pages. History2007 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And if KoH had only said "weather related topics" then that'd be accurate. But King of Hearts was specific: editing articles.--v/r - TP 01:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, I will get my Aspirins ready.... But we all know where this will end, of course. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I already asked KoH for clarification. There have been cases in the past where folks were topic banned from articles but not talk pages.--v/r - TP 01:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, fine. What I meant was that the path that has started here usually leads to a well known destination... So time will tell... History2007 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was only going off what the policy page states. If KoH intended a special exception in this case then I wouldn't know. -- LWG talk 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. The ban is intended to include any edit related to faith and religion, regardless of namespace. Of course, if you choose to appeal the ban in a few months time, this does not preclude you from referring to the topic, but only to the extent which is necessary to support your appeal. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That settles it I think. History2007 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The vote (can we ditch the idea that consensus is anything but a vote?) was on the proposal, and the proposal specified Christianity and articles. Humanpublic (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "can we ditch the idea that consensus is anything but a vote?" No. That is policy. Can not ditch policy. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened is that while the original proposal only mentioned the specific articles currently involved, editors commenting on the discussion called for a broader ban, if not a full block, and the end result was a ban on faith-based articles broadly construed. -- LWG talk 16:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
A minority of the voting editors called for a broader ban. Strangesad (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I found a portion supporting the original proposal, a portion going for a ban from all faith and religion, and a portion even calling for a site-wide ban/block. In my opinion the middle option is the most appropriate compromise. -- King of ♠ 19:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a few hours after the topic ban, Humanpublic went to the talk page on Jesus to repeat exactly the same ill-informed tendentious WP:SOAP stuff he has posted there over and over. And over [1].Smeat75 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's the hub of the matter. My comment in that diff is not "soap" and it is not "forum." It is a discussion of sources. I agree that it is exactly the same stuff that was labelled as POV-pushing, and disruptive and used to topic-ban me. But, in fact, it is just a discussion of sourcing. Humanpublic (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As there seems to be a lot of confusion about AN, may I point out that discussions on AN are never votes. The closing admin may very well decide for a different solution than the solution most users have supported. (This has nothing to do with Humanpublic in particular, it's just the way AN works. Just thought I'd specify it as I see some users writing as if they believe it was a vote).Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, we are all aware of that. I don't think there is any need for you to be on this talk page anymore. You've successfully arrived at a topic ban on Humanpublic and commenting here just gives off the vibe of prancing around making your victory lap. We can all adequately advise Humanpublic without your help. Not trying to be a dick, but if I were Humanpublic, I'd be pretty pissed that you feel the need to run in here and keep poking. Time to back off.--v/r - TP 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Arbitration case request[edit]

HI Humanpublic, I've removed the case request you made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, primarily because you posted it there more than 5 hours ago and haven't edited it since. If you do wish to make a case request regarding yourself or about the topic more generally please review the guide to arbitration before making another request. If you have any questions feel free to post them here or on your talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Was I in the right place? How do I appeal a topic ban without "serving" it for 6 months first? Humanpublic (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
+1 to that advice. The best approach is to proving good faith to the community is not to focus on minutia within the topic ban, but rather to prove to the community that you have the best interest of the project in mind by civilly participating in other parts of the project. There is no shortage of work. Try approaching topics within a WikiProject away from religion or something in the WP:Backlog, Sadads (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes you were in the right place, but before the Arbitration Committee takes on a case it generally requires previous steps in the dispute resolution process not to have worked. In this case (without knowing the full background, or pre-judging the Arbitrators) I don't see that there is evidence that the community can't handle this one. Just a quick note the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee would not be appropriate because this is a topic ban.
My suggestion would be to follow the advice above, you need to spend some time showing the community that you can learn from the lessons the community is trying to prevent. Find another area to edit constructively and show us that you can. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The community should not be trying to prevent what it is trying to prevent. Communities are known for lynch mobs, among other things--particularly regarding their religion. Strangesad (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The advice given above is bullshit. If the topic-ban is unfair, that should be pursued to the limit. Unfairness harms the community and the project. Telling someone that you don't know anything about the background of the case, but nobody should appeal it anyway, is authority-worship. Strangesad (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


You must stop this[edit]

In this edit you have again recklessly used the term dishonesty about other editors. Your behavior is inexcusable. Based on your previous statement about "cherry picking" there, in my post there I specifically made the statement: "Have I "cherry picked" sources? If so, show it not just hypothesize it, imagine it and then state it". You have shown nothing with sources, but generated insults. You have zero sources, as usual, but are long on accusations and insults. You must stop this. Now. And you have discussed the article ""The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsu" which involves Christianity, as well as the discussion of the argument from silence which involves Judeo-Christian issues. It seems that you have thrown the topic ban to the wind, along with other policies. History2007 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest. That becomes a way for you to add a source to any article you like: just find a source that mentions religion somewhere in it, regardless of whether that has anything to do with my comment, and then insist I not be allowed to discuss your use of sources. Your use of the source is, in fact, incredibly misleading to the point of dishonesty. And this is not, in fact, the first or even second time I've found you doing that. Humanpublic (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You have found nothing. You have zero sources, as usual, but are long on accusations. And the source does involve religion. The topic involves religion. And religion was a topic related to that article long ago, long ago. So it is nothing new there. History2007 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
A Topic-ban does not even prohibit discussion of an Wikipedia article that has a section about religion, much less a source that makes reference to it. This is utter poweertripping, admin bullshit. Strangesad (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
History2007, there is no reason to debate Humanpublic on the topic of whether a particular article is related to religion. Doing so just tempts him to violate his topic ban further. If he makes an edit or comment that is clearly in violation, just report him. If you aren't 100% sure, ignore him.

March 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks and violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
HP, you are the target of religious bigotry, admin powertripping, stereotypes, and hate. Make a sockpuppet and start over. Strangesad (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I didn't violate my topic ban. No diffs were provided. I don't think saying a use of surces is dishonest is a personal attack, but I can certainly replace the word "dishonest" with "misleading" if that is deemed superior. Agin, no diffs were provided by the admin, so I can't be very specific. Humanpublic (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Since your block expired several hours ago, I went ahead and disabled the unblock template. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and please disregard the very bad advice offered by Strangesad above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's law[edit]

Please think about whether you really want to call people Nazis, as you did here. There's been an unfortunate outbreak of this sort of discourse on Wikipedia, and we should try to stop it. Jehochman Talk 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a Nazi. I described how I felt, being presumed guilty until proven innocent, and being blocked for violating my topic-ban if I argue my innocence. Humanpublic (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You suggested "sew a yellow badge on me" (my link). This is not something to be joked about. You're involved in a minor dispute about an Internet website. Nobody is about to ship you off to a concentration camp, or worse. Jehochman Talk 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I told you why I made the comment, and it wasn't to joke Don't come to my Talk page to lecture me. If you come here, listen. Humanpublic (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Random act of smileness[edit]

718star.svg
Hello Humanpublic, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined[edit]

This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to quit in disgust, but I can't resist asking why there is no appeal option. I'm not Minorview. I've never met Minorview (I've met Strangesad). It would be very strange if we had the same IP, although not impossible, since I don't have my own IP. Why is there no appeal template? Humanpublic (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the discussion of my IP on Minrview's Talk page: that is not my IP. That is a library, from whence I occasionally edit. Many others do so as well. If you look at the contribs, very few of the edits you see are mine. I don't have Internet at home, so I never edit from an IP exclusively my own. Humanpublic (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to make every effort to keep IP's private. Humanpublic (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How do I appeal? Humanpublic (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You could ask Herod Antipas. Don't hold your breath. Strangesad (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I may take the empty tomb route. Humanpublic (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you comparing the Resurrection to sock puppetry???????????? 8-O Strangesad (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
lol. The irony is that, if I wanted to continue editing, now I'd have to sockpuppet. Minorview and I can't both edit, so one of us has to make a new account if we both want to edit....
The Mummy can edit... but only the Mummy can edit again... Basket Feudalist 20:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


I thought this was going to expire in a month. Humanpublic (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What made you think that? Take a look at your user page (putting aside your block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

They blocked Minorview for a month, and you permanently, on the theory that you are Minorview and therefore they're not really blocking you permanently. Strangesad (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Still sockpuppetting. Nobody's caught me yet..... Humanpublic (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)