User talk:The5thForce

The5thForce, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi The5thForce! 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! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page canvassing

Stop it. One talk page is enough for your comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard your latest edit to the vagina talk page: as the clitoris is not part of the vagina, perhaps this comment would be more relevant to the vulva page if anywhere? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new article

Hi The5thForce: Thank you for the article on Kassim Ahmad. He does appear to be worthy of an article, and the more articles we have on notable topics and people outside the anglosphere, the better. However, please don't create new articles as talk pages. Your account is old enough, and you have made enough edits, that you should be autoconfirmed and thus be able to create new articles in article space; if not (I understand there are technical exceptions for editors who access Wikipedia through certain kinds of connections), it would be better to use the Articles for Creation process until your account is old enough - or simply to create the article in either your user space (see the link on this page to your personal "sandbox") or with the "Draft:" prefix, and then ask someone to move it to mainspace. However, there is another concern with this article: it appears to be a machine translation from the Malaysian Wikipedia article. Machine-translated articles are not a good idea; they are very hard for a reader to understand, and need to be corrected by someone who can read the original language. I have listed the article at the appropriate noticeboard - if you click on that link, you will see how many articles are waiting for attention. It's also not very complimentary to Dr. Ahmad to have an incomprehensible article about him ... It's better to make a brief stub yourself using what sources you are able to find and to read. Other editors can then expand that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome, with links particularly concerning copyright

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of “Debate on the Hadith” and “Sex in reference to the Quran”

Thank you for your support in attempting to protect “Debate on the Hadith” for Wikipedia readers even though it might not be successful. As you know; initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule. This attempt was foiled and the article was defended by other editors, like your good self, and restored. A new attempt has now emerged under the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_on_the_Hadith. It appears to be a coordinated effort of creating a non-genuine discussion between half a dozen people all in support of the articles re deletion .This is exactly what was done to the other article titled ”Sex in reference to the Quran”. Obviously, these deletions are not personal but do clearly have the appearance of an agenda at work. Perhaps its purpose is to monopolise all articles on Islam at Wikipedia. They appear to be succeeding, given this level of persistence and dedication to delete articles that are not in-line with their agenda. There are so many other articles that are poorly written across the Islamic pages of Wikipedia that are ignored or perhaps condoned by the above. I doubt if any of these people have contributed a useful article to Wikipedia. I suppose there is nothing incorruptible; not even an open forum such as that of Wikipedia. It’s a shame. This has become tedious. Thanking you again. YdhaW (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kassim Ahmad

The article Kassim Ahmad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unintelligible, unsourced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eperoton (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

postings at tachyon

Talk pages are not forums or soapboxes for publishing personal opinion essays (WP:TALKNO). Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts) are not appropriate for articles or article talk pages (see WP:NOT#ESSAY). Your post on the talk page reads like a personal essay - it does not discuss reliable sources or improvements to the article. The talk page is not for general discussion about the subject of the article, in this case tachyons. WP:TPO allows for the collapsing of off-topic discussions. Feel free to pull in admins, I'm open to the idea that I am wrong, but realize it might WP:BOOMERANG on you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

im putting an rfc on it, next step will be mediation and if you continue i will request disciplinary action on your account. The5thForce (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC usually are about questions of article content, often related text to be added or changes to the current text. Your comments on the talk page make no suggested change or addition, at least none obvious to me, which is actually an indication that it is off-topic as defined by WP:TPG. You would probably get better comments from other editors in the RFC if you proposed actual changes to the article rather than posting your philosophical musings on the subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Request for mediation on higgs boson talk page". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Tachyon and Talk:Higgs boson for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wont, because its logically incoherent to 'refrain from discussing the topic while trying to improve the article of that topic'. i assume what you mean is improving the efficiency of the discussion in order to improve the efficiency of the article, and i replied to your comment at Talk:Tachyon. The5thForce (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat here what I said there, because technically it was off topic on article talk, and I will mark it as such now.

If you can produce wp:reliable sources (and in this case wp:secondary sources) for your suggestions, then please do so now. Otherwise whatever you say on an article talk page is off-topic and will be treated as talk page abuse and disruption, or ultimately as vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Request for mediation on higgs boson talk page, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

February 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Tachyon for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Do not use RFCs as a device for proposing original research or speculation. Your RFC has been speedy-closed. Further disruptive editing will be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Mathematics, you may be blocked from editing. Referring to this edit. - DVdm (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Referring to this edit - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Please stop posting your own conclusions, which are original research. You are wasting our time and annoying the other editors. Rather than continuing to post RFCs, please go to the Teahouse for advice. You are likely to be blocked from editing unless you listen to and respect advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi The5thForce. It's obvious from your two months of contributions that you have a great interest in speculative physics. It's also obvious you have no interest in helping build an encyclopedia, which is a compilation of information from published, verifiable, reliable sources. The type of content you have been adding to various talk pages does not help in that task, so I have permanently removed your ability to edit Wikipedia. You may appeal this block by adding {{Unblock|Your reason here}} to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2016 (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).

The5thForce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i havent edited any talk pages since receiving the last warning that i could be blocked the next time i edit a talk page, aside from this fact, your statement is completely false to the point of being malicious, ive collaborated with other editors to improve multiple other topics ranging from religion to human physiology/sexuality

Decline reason:

You have continued to use Wikipedia to promote your own original ideas, on your user page since your last warning, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. If you want a platform for publishing your own ideas, please stick to using your blog. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-adding what makes me tick to my user page is actually exactly what the user page is for. i will continue to report your abuse of admin tools to whatever authority/owners of wikipedia are available for contact, being that i have invested my own money into the wikimedia foundation i will also consider the possibility of further legal response(through the wikimedia foundation, obviously this isnt a criminal case). The5thForce (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2016 (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.

-i will also request administrator arbitration and discipline on your account for your action blocking my account. The5thForce (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration committee email sent: ✓

While there is a threat of legal action outstanding, nobody will unblock you - certainly not the Arbitration Committee. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your assumptions are why im asking the arbitration committee to unblock my account and discipline yours, this sort of recklessly poor judgement should not permeate the ranks of administrators on wikipedia The5thForce (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck - but if you want to know where my assumption came from, you can check WP:LEGAL. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you know something i dont, but thats quite a stretch to assume a trivial wikipedia user dispute would ever reach a courtroom, guilt has a funny way of influencing perception though The5thForce (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stretched nothing - *you* made an explicit legal threat, which I see you have now amended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Unblock Request

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).

The5thForce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have already been declined once- unjustifiably, and arbitration is pending so I will request any administrators considering rejecting this 2nd request to withhold their decision until arbitration is resolved, if however an admin reviewing this dispute agrees that this block was unmerited I plead you to remove the block as soon as possible. I will also make clear that I intend to stop editing article talk pages and return to collaborating privately with more established editors via their user talk pages as I have done in the past with excellent success for the most part. Hopefully you understand that keeping relevant information on my own user page simplifies the process of private collaboration with other editors. The5thForce (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The previous rejection of your request, which you believe was unjustified, was wholly correct, and until you accept the Wikipedia concept of the correct usage of talk pages, including your own, there is little prospect of an unblock. In addition there is no prospect whatsoever of an unblock until you make a complete withdrawal of your threat of legal action. This is hard-wired Wikipedia policy.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 5 February 2016 (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.

i'll raise the white flag, time to change my IP and start over. The5thForce (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if the arbitration committee decides this was unjustified, please post whether this account has been unblocked on this talk page and i'll check a few months/years from now, i dont have the patience nor the time for these petty admin games as i dont get paid to do nothing. The5thForce (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting that you will sock instead of accepting your ban will not help your cause. Neither does admitting that you are paid to edit. --Tarage (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, apparent block evasion here, here, here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]