Tyluthan

Hi. feel free to post all you want.

Oh. By the way I have the same religious stance as User:Ouijalover

I will always be a Tyluthan. All hail Selex!!!`Ouijalover 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out!

Article on "Tyluthan"

As I told Ouijalover, you are welcome to post an article, provided independent verification is available. If that verification can be found and presented, the article will withstand scrutiny. However, if it does not, then the article will be removed. Period. There is no equivocation in that regard. --Mhking 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is not encyclopedic; it is not verifiable, there is no indication that it is anything other than the misbegotten and poorly-written fantasies of someone. No one will see it as anything other than that. There is no proof that it is anything other than that. "Hurting" anything is immaterial in this case. --Mhking 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is? Prove it. Cite the source. Cite the independent, verifiable, widely-available source. --Mhking 00:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You either can or you cannot. And since you do not choose to, I have to presume that you cannot. Nothing you have shown indicates otherwise. --Mhking 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

An e-mail to you about some "secret" tome is not independent, nor verifiable. You have not demonstrated such. As for freedom of religion, no one, least of all myself, has said you cannot worship as you choose. Quite frankly, I don't care if you worship a barbeque grate. For a religion -- or any subject for that matter -- to have an article in WP, there must be independent, verifiable information that can be linked to and can corroborate your position. The "send me an e-mail and I'll send it back" route that you mention is neither independent, nor verifiable. Your cohort previously indicated there were less than ten adherents, and all of a sudden, you want to say that it is a "secret" religion, and no one is permitted to see the sacred holy book unless he is a grand high poohbah or some other such rot. Fine. But there must be other indication of the existence of this so-called religion in some media outside (i.e., INDEPENDENT) of your mystery tome. You cannot provide such (as opposed to each and every other established and recognized religion on the planet), so the conversation is moot. Go play elsewhere. Your fantasy cult has no place here. --Mhking 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; you obviously do not understand the law. Making up a religion with no empirical documentation does not qualify you for "special rights." Secondly, the rules governing the placement of articles on WP is clear. Referencing empirical sources is required; the information must be verifiable; and you can't make up stuff and call it factual. Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to put up a bunch of nonsense and suddenly call it a religion. You have not provided any way to verify that what you call a religion is anything other than the fantasies of a couple of pre-teen kids playing on their parents' computers. I have patiently asked for such verification. You, providing none, are suddenly insisting that I am violating your Constitutional rights. I counter that your personal rights have no bearing on whether or not you get to post an article. You do not have a Constitutional right to post an article. The rules governing WP are clear. In order to participate, you must follow the established guidelines. If you choose not to, then any article you post will be removed. Period.

Now. Please refrain from making idle threats and playing games. I'm finished talking about it until you come back, and present independently verifiable, solid, authentic, cogent facts. If not, have a nice day. --Mhking 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image Revolution

I have listed Image Revolution for deletion. Please don't take offense; it is in no way personal. I just don't believe the topic is encyclopedic. If you disagree, please feel free to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image Revolution! There will be a discussion there, with Wikipedia editors discussing the issue, and that's where you should explain to people why you don't think it should be deleted. The discussion will last for about a week or so. At the end of the week, an admin will decide the article's fate, based on the discussion.

Please do not remove the AfD while the discussion is active. It is considered vandalism, and will not help your case.

Again, I hope you don't take this as a personal offense. Feel free to talk to me about the AfD process (or anything else); I'll be glad to help you out. It's not my goal to delete stuff that does belong here, and if you can convince me that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit my mistake. Thank you! --Ashenai 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly put up information about your website! Just please use your user page to do so. You can put stuff about yourself on your user page; that's what it's for. But if you want to put stuff into the main body of the encyclopedia, you have to show us that it belongs in the encyclopedia. :) --Ashenai 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If I'm wrong and you're right, feel free to explain why over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image Revolution. I'm not the one who'll be making the final decision, so all you have to do is prove to everyone else that you're right and I'm wrong. --Ashenai 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you persist in removing the AfD notice from the Image Revolution article, I will have to request page protection, which means you'll be entirely unable to edit the page at all. I don't want that to happen, and I'm sure you don't either, so please do not remove the notice. Thank you. --Ashenai 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock request

You aren't directly blocked, but let me guess you are autoblocked since your IP has recently been used by another user? e.g. Vandal6-6-6 ? As the block message says without the detail unless you are directly blocked we cannot unblock since we can't see the root cause of your block. --pgk^(talk) 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)