User:WalkerThrough/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, WalkerThrough! Thank you for your contributions. I am Intelati and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!  intelati  talk 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Hi WalkerThrough, I see you are having a bit of a discussion with JamesBWatson on your talk pages. It would be better to have this discussion on the Discussion page of the Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles article. In that way others could more easily join in. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unbelievers"
Based on some comments I've seen at Talk:Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, I recommend that you look overthis essay discussing how the Gospel and this site's neutrality and sourcing guidelines actually cooperate. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
LWG talk 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been edit-warring and engaging in tendentious editing on the bible article. I have blocked your account for 24 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is unfair, religious discrimination, and wrong. Slrub is the one that twice reverted my edits, I only reverted his once. Then I put a POV tag and who gets blocked?? You got it, the Christian. Unbiased? I don't think so. Oh and User "Mark of the Beast" comments against me on the ANI, lol. Wow.

I am very displeased and disappointed with the recent behavior by anti-Christian editors on WP. They are making some WP articles biased and religiously discriminatory. Who would of ever thought that you can have an Encyclopedia page about the Bible in which the editors refuse to mention its own claim to divine inspiration in the main section...awful. This is really lowering the quality of the relevant WP articles. Then Slrub follows me around to my other good edits on other pages and reverts them (if any believers could go to my contribs and revert Slrub's bias, I would appreciate it). When I appeal to ANI about discrimination, I get banned. This comes down to who has the numbers, and their bias wins. So, if unbelievers have the majority on WP, which at times it seems to be true, then they get their way totally against common sense and reason, including censoring out the Christian views with strong Reliable sources about the Bible. This is sad and wrong. The WP Bible page is not neutral because its editors are censoring out the Christian view in the lead (which is the only section many people may read). I pray for those who have made themselves my enemies, that they may be saved and receive wisdom, as the LORD says: "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." Without that, they have no wisdom, as it shows with my recent interactions with them. These anti-Christian types are seriously downgrading the worth of certain WP articles. One day, they will find out that Jesus is Lord, and the Bible is His Word. Until then, maybe they will stay in darkness. The good news in all this is that everyone knows WP is a secular Encyclopedia, and therefore not trustworthy for matters of faith, like information on the Bible. Happily, I believe many on the internet will go to a Christian source for truth on the Bible (I've been told WP is not about truth). Fine then, if that's how WP editors see it. The world can go elsewhere for the truth, who has a Name: Jesus. God bless all of you, even those who opposed me (and didn't want me to bless them). Love in the King, WalkerThrough (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, WalkerThrough. If you disagree with your block, I suggest you read the Guide to appealing blocks. If you place  on this page, another administrator will review your block. I do strongly recommend that you first read the guide, though. At the moment, your block will last for 24 hours; after that time has elapsed, you will be able to edit then. If you wish to continue contributing to the Bible article once your block is over, I would suggest that you take part in the discussions on the talk page before making any edits to the article itself. There is a discussion in progress about what  the content of the article should be and some of the concerns you raised are being addressed. However, editing the page before taking part in discussion may be seen as disruptive. If you have any problems, please let me know. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, WalkerThrough. Just so you know, ANI is a terrible place to take a dispute. You got off easy; that place is a viper's nest. I don't know who advised you to go there, but it was bad advice. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You said it, "Mark of the Beast" was very quick to come out against me. Nobody advised me, but I wanted to go to a higher authority. I am hoping the Admin Zippy that responded can help. He seems to be going in the right direction on the talk page. Thank you for your support of getting it in the lead where it belongs. I'm hoping it ends up in its rightful place. Does this kind of thing go to a vote, with a majority win? God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I'm not an admin. As for the discussion, the decision is made by consensus. This is not a straight vote, but a discussion between editors. A consensus is reached where a majority of editors reach a common decision. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That decision tends to follow the existing guidelines, like WP:DUE, which were formed as site-wide consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict w/ the above 2 comments) WalkerThrough, we don't generally decide things by voting. As others have noted, Consensus is the relevant policy, but as you might expect, the actual determination of consensus is often extremely complicated and difficult. When I am aware of, or involved in, a content dispute, my first recourse is discussion on the talk page. If that seems not to be working, I look at the top of the talk page for relevant WikiProjects and post notes on their talk pages, requesting opinions from anyone reading there. My third option, seldom needed, would be a content RFC (that's "Request For Comment"). I know, this site is full of ill-marked roads, many of which feature dangerous potholes, and worse. I'm sorry it's not easier to know what to do. Please feel free to ask me for help anytime, though. I am an administrator (for whatever that's worth), and I'm a bit experienced in navigating our minefields. I also try to make it a point to, um, treat others as I'd like to be treated? I think I read that somewhere. ;) Please do be careful around here, though. You're learning that... -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some advice which I recommended earlier

 * Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy means that: Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, Wikipedia only reports what has been written and does not take any stance on doctrine.
 * --This also means that due weight is given, and undue weight is not. The Bible is respected not just by Christians, but many other religions.


 * Jesus commands us to not pass judgement -- Judge not, that ye be not judged. -- (Matthew 7:1)
 * He commands us this because we are imperfect -- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matt. 1:3) and Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)
 * We should not lash out against someone if we think they're hiding the truth of Christ with the NPOV policy -- Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21)
 * Indeed, going along with the NPOV policy is a good idea: it allows us to prevent truely anti-Christian points of view from dominating articles -- If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matt. 5:39-41)
 * Christ doesn't need us to protect His truth, anyway, God will do so. -- The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Back up, and try and imagine this from someone else's perspective. Imagine if a Muslim came into the Qur'an article and insisted that the article state that the Qur'an says it is the word of God. Imagine if he then blames the reversion not on a lack of neutrality, but on others opposing Islam. What would you think of this individual? Imagine if this person refused to acknowledge any reason given by other editors, but insisted that his edits be allowed, not on the basis of the site's guidelines, but his own religious beliefs. This person would not give you a good impression of Islam, would he? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ian. The problem here is not following WP policy. I have been. I included 6 RS for that statement in the lead. Your example of the Muslim is different, because I've been insisting that it be included on the basis of the site's guidelines. Also, I've been blaming the reversion on a lack of neutrality as well as opposing the Bible. The problem is the numerous non-believers that just don't want the Word of God known and they use their numbers to make it happen. Why did you remove the POV. You are my brother, you need to support me. The article is not being neutral if the Christian view is censored out. Please support your brother, Ian. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing you are missing is that disputes on wikipedia are not settled by bludgeoning the opposition into sitting down and shutting up, they are settled by reaching a solution that all parties can be on board with. If you want my advice, I'd suggest that you stay out of the article for a while, even after your block expires. Your viewpoints have been heard, and we are moving towards a more positive discussion, but I am afraid that if you return with more complaints you may incite further bad feelings, whether justified or not. LWG talk 21:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what LWG is saying: Diplomacy is paramount here. Being right is maybe 5% of the game. It's better to be effective and a bit slow-working than to be right and blocked. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, depending upon the definition you're using for "right", being right may be 0% of the game - Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I almost never repeat that particular mantra. I find it's often more escalatory than de-escalatory, and there are better ways to get the same point across. In terms of diplomacy, it's not a successful dictum, in my experience. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I've had the opposite experience - in many cases, its led to an epiphany - an "ah-hah!" moment that has turned an edit warrior completely around. Sometimes there is (extreme) surprise, but then they read the relevant bit, maybe ask a few questions, and then they "get" it. Of course, this may be the time I see the side of the coin you've seen. :-/ KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or vice-versa. It's a big, beautiful, complicated world. :) I know you and I are on the same team, KC, so I'm not overly concerned about this matter of semantics. Walker can see both of our points here, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi GT, you're great. May God bless you, and I know He has. In terms of the Bible lead, I hope we don't let slip the importance, like you said, of also including a statement that the Bible says it is inspired by God, in addition to the fact of so many people believing it. What the Bible says matters more than what 7 billion people believe, because it is the Word of God. There are 5 editors who have expressed support for this in the lead. Hopefully, we can build on that to reach a general agreement for inclusion. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a man
For some reason one editor, Slrub, has been referring to me as she or her. I don't know if he has done this to try and downplay my edits, or insult me. Why he assumed I'm a woman, I don't know. I'd like everyone to know that I'm a man, created by the living God. I praise my Creator: "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well." (Psalm 139:14)  WalkerThrough (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure Slrub was not trying to insult you. Some people on the internet use "she" to refer to someone whose gender they do not know in an attempt to point out the way other people assume maleness and use "he". LWG talk 23:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also please don't think someone is trying to downplay your edits by referring to you as female as we don't consider edits from females any less then those from males Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * More than half of the world's population are female, so when I do not know someone's gender I refer to that person as she. If you prefer I refer to you as he, I will from now on, of course. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But at the same time, 87% of Wikipedians are male. Zooming in to a more defined population does change statistical breakdowns of population. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to let people know that you are male, you could always pop this on your talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Thank you very much for letting me speak. I have come to understand that any controversial edit I make without first the approval of the community is almost certainly not going to remain in the Bible page. So, I would like to say that I'm sorry for my misunderstanding when I added the statement in the lead. When Doug seemed to say that there was agreement for a statement in the lead, he said that I could work the wording. I am new, and I thought that meant I could put it in the article. I didn't know that meant I had to first put it on the talk page to discuss it. When my addition was reverted, after I felt I had the go ahead from Doug and the community (although now I realize I was mistaken), I was unhappy and went to ANI. It seems like that caused lots of problems. I would like to contribute positively towards the discussion. I am at this point not the best person to make any controversial edit on the Bible page. I would like for another to make any final edit after the community reaches consensus, which I hope will be the best one. I would very much appreciate it if I could at least contribute on the Bible talk page. I can also stop charging others with fault. I would like to focus on the content, not the editor. I hope this satisfies Maunus. I know you guys will be monitoring my activities, and I'd really not liked to get blocked again. So I think I've learned some things not to do. I am new here and would appreciate some grace as I'm learning. Sincerely,WalkerThrough (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this goes a long way towards demonstrating understanding of the principles that we operate by, I am especially happy that you express a will to learn and a will to focus on improving content through civil discussion. I am shortening your block to 12 hours, so that we can all have a good night's sleep (or whatever your time zone lets you do in the next 12hrs) and go to work on improving the page tomorrow. Please don't abuse the good faith that you are being shown. Sincerely, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus, I appreciate that. WalkerThrough (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Walker - just to say that I am glad to see your return - Lugnad (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad to see your return. I wish you were around yesterday.  God bless you WalkerThrough (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going abroad tomorrow, so please excuse me for a time, you will do just fine Lugnad (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I like having you around. May God bless your trip, and if you pray, please remember this situation. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to use edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your edits, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bible
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bible. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just did. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Please do not edit to promote your own personal point of view to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Acts of the Apostles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Do not edit war to include yet more Biblical sources and views. '' KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am following WP policy and maintaining a NPOV in the article. Yes, I have my own POV, but I am properly sourcing in accordance with NPOV, V, PRIMARY, and NOR.  Please don't hound me and accuse me of breaking policy when I am actually following it.  Come on Killer, please be fair to me.  Those were good sourced statements!  This is unprofessional and uncalled for to harass me at every move when I am doing nothing wrong (you are coming close to violating WP:Harass).  A case could be made for harassment by looking at the record.  I don't want to have report this somewhere.  The sources were already there, and someone took out good RS.  They should be in the article according to WP policy and to better the article.  WalkerThrough (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When your indefinite block was reduced to 12 hours, I promised on ANI to keep an eye on you. I am doing so. I am attempting to warn you not in order to cause you grief, but so you will be aware and examine your actions and change your behavior and approach so you do not run afoul of those policies. If you wish to ignore my helpful advice, you will eventually be blocked, for you are not editing according to policy. A more helpful attitude would be not "I'm not violating policy!"but "how am I violating policy, and how can I improve?" KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Back to our discussion of truth, it is utterly false that I am breaking WP policy. It is true that you are getting close to harassing me.  If you want to live in a world where truth doesn't matter, then you can continue your pattern of hounding me, and I can take this to the appropriate authority for harassment.  You are doing more than keeping an eye on me, you are opposing almost any edit I do.  Stop hounding me Killer!  I don't want your advice any more.  WalkerThrough (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. It is clear from this edit and similar that you are uninterested in producing a factual encyclopedia but wish to insert tracts from your own beliefs. Whilst an encyclopedia can reference such beliefs, it cannot present such beliefs as reliable sources, since they clearly are not. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again...This is religious discrimination
Someone please help. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

When Black Kite first blocked me, there was no example. Now after blocking the administrator is digging for examples. Oh Lord, help me. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be quite happy for the editor to be unblocked if, and only if he would agree to cease inserting his own concepts into religious articles. It's a very simple request, and I can't see any reason why he could not agree to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, is it ok if I give the Christian view with RS, if I clearly state this is according to a Primary source (i.e. the Bible) or according to Christians (with RS)?? WalkerThrough (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the comment below sums it up; the link I gave above (the first one) is a prime example of that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I can agree not to insert my POV as fact in the article. I am a Christian with some knowledge about my faith.  As such, in the appropriate places, (and articles on issues of Christianity) I would like to offer whatever knowledge I can contribute to WP on the Christian view neutrally, using RS.  I hope you can be satisfied with my acceptance of your concern, and we can resolve this problem.  Are you satisfied?  WalkerThrough (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think an indefinite block for this is very harsh. Indefinite blocks should be used for wilfull malevolence and disruption, or for someone who has shown himself to be unable to conform over a longer period. This is not what we have here, Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration after initially getting of to a bad start for lack of understanding of the editing culture. We should help Walker Through to learn how to contribute well, not block him. If Walker Through wishes I could mentor him in this process. I agree with Black Kite that we need a clear statement that Walker Through understands that inserting Bible quotes into articles without prior consensus is not a good way to edit - because it is controversial when to do that. But I am quite certain that he can understand that. This is not religious discrimination, it is the way that secular encyclopedias are written. He also needs to show that he understands that he is not presenting "the christian viewpoint", but a particular Christian viewpoint that is likely to coincide primarily with his own. I am not going to review the unblock request because of my previous involvement with the case, but I do think that indefinite is excessive in the absence of any evidence of actual malevolence. I hope the reviewing admin will consider my statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indefinite does not mean infinite; it means until the editor agrees to stop the issues that are wasting serious amounts of other editor's time.  As I said on ANI, if any admin believes the user is sincere about this, then they may unblock without further consultation. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, as you mentioned on the ANI, I certainly agree not to give OR in articles. I have been trying hard to follow this rule.  I believe in following the WP policy, and I have working very hard to source any controversial statements (explicitly telling this is what the Bible (a primary source) says, or Christians (with RS).  If an administrator could please unblock me, as Black Kite mentioned, since I am of course agreeing not to give OR.  WalkerThrough (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that it is NPOV, not OR, which you have been most egregiously violating? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A case in point that I just must point out. The blocking admin (Black Kite) says I need to promise not to insert OR to be unblocked.  The admin (Killer) who has been "keeping an eye on me" (i.e. looking at almost every single edit I make) says I have not been breaking OR, but rather NPOV.  I think I have been completely vindicated for this unjust block!  Hallelujah.  WalkerThrough (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite said at ANI that I can be unblocked if I "to promise to stop inserting OR into religious articles." That's why I talked about OR.  I am agreeing to try my best not to add any OR to any article, and also to follow NPOV.  Could someone please unblock me now?  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not how I read Black Kite's comment. I think it meant "I will accept it if another administrator makes the judgement that the block should be lifted, but in my opinion that option should not be considered unless WalkerThrough promises not to add OR." I don't see it as meaning that nothing else should be taken into account. However, even if I am wrong in thinking that was what Black Kite meant, it is just Black Kite's opinion, and any administrator considering unblocking needs to make an independent assessment of the situation, taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Kite said at ANI: "if anyone wants to unblock then that's fine, but I think the editor needs to promise to stop inserting OR into religious articles exactly as the comment below my block statement represents." I think I have done that.  Now that I have fulfilled the blocking admin's condition for unblocking, could someone please unblock me.  Black Kite said it was late and he was only going to be around a short time more.  Someone??? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there nobody reading this? I think the issue has been resolved, but nobody has unblocked me.  Maunus please help, or somebody!  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the world going to respect WP if its admins block Christians who are providing the Christian and Biblical views, in order to censor out the Christian view (presented according to WP policy)?? My personal esteem of WP is rapidly declining as I interact with biased editors who break policy and then wrongly accuse me of doing so.  Not only that, but some admins have proven to be irresponsible with their powers.  One admin, Killer, has been harassing me.  If any fair person would review the examples given for blocking me, they will know I did nothing wrong (edits followed NPOV, No OR, V).  Could somebody please put an end to this unjust block??  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't unblock you now because of my involvement. But I can tell you this. That unblock request is not going to work. It never works to blame someone else, or cry harrassment. It just doesn't. What works is showing that you recognizing that you must have done something wrong to get blocked and state a willingness to avoid repeating that. I suggest you restate your unblock request as soon as you can, as it is now it is not working in your favor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think I've broken any WP policy with those edits given in the block box as support for the block? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't think you have violated any rules - I think you have shown bad judgment. I had hoped that after the first time you would have realized that inserting Bible quotes out of context without prior discussion wouldn'tbe seen as helpful by other editors. It does seem as if you are as it were "on a mission from God", and that doesn't work here. Encyclopedias are not for missions, they are for objective presentations of (mostly) scholarly views. We can quote the Bible when there is a particular reason that using this primary source is more helpful than using a scholarly secondary source. That is not very often the case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I'm so sorry for wasting your time with this nonsense. I am so grateful for your support and help, in righteousness.  I am very disappointed in WP for the actions of certain admins.  You on the other hand, shine a bright ray of goodness in a dark cloud that has swept in.  May God bless you abundantly (I say that from the bottom of my heart with all kind intentions, please don't be offended).  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maunus has recused himself from unblocking you. The unblock template has placed your pagelink on a page which alerts admins that there is an unblock request. Repeated postings here will do nothing to speed anyone along; admin will review this request sooner or later. It has been less than an hour since you were blocked. Have patience. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 02:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Killer, I'm sorry, but your advice has lost all credibility in my sight. Due to your actions, I can not value your words.  Actions speak much louder than words.  I don't want to hear any more advice from you.  I think you and I need some space.  Please give me distance now (i.e. stop posting on my talk page, unless you want to apologize).  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon the review of the past few weeks, I think my difficult and unpleasant WP editing experience may have come to an end. It is clear to me that there are many non-Christian editors who are determined to censor the Bible and Christian faith views from being presented, even in accordance with each and every WP policy. This is very sad, because WP has so much potential to be a source for good, reliable information in all the world. However, if this is how the Christian view is treated, it seriously undermines the credibility of WP. Maybe it would be better for me to be blocked forever so that I don't waste my time bending over backwards to follow all of WP policies to improve articles (especially on Christian topics), only to have almost all my hard work reverted by those who wish to censor views of faith. I have added significant relevant Bible verses as acceptable primary sources, and respected Christian theological secondary sources, explicitly stating these are their views, and they are over and over, time and again undone with some non-sense accusation like I'm breaking NPOV. This indeed is sad. I hope the world will know the bias of many WP editors and not trust the supposed NPOV (for lack of the Christian side, and strong presentation of the anti-Christian side and arguments). God bless all the WP editors. Sadly, but truly, WalkerThrough (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What does "This about right" mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the above - I did mean NPOV not OR - apologies for the confusion (although one could argue there is an OR angle to it as well). Black Kite (t) (c) 08:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have heard the words of my Lord:


 * 14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)


 * As such, I put this for the benefit of all my brothers and sisters who may experience the same continual anti-Christian resistance. Children of God, we cannot yoke ourselves together with unbelievers.  We want to go left, they want to go right, it can't work.  The yoke of oxen can only go one way (i.e. the Encyclopedia can only read one way).  If you experience the same constant unfair, biased opposition of unbelievers, God says do not be yoked with them, but come out from among them.  I hope this lesson that I've learned will prove beneficial for my family in Jesus, the Son of God, and Lord of lords.  There is no need to unblock me.  At this point, I have no desire to edit on WP, as I can not yoke myself with you unbelievers.  I hope you "come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).  WP claims to present articles with a NPOV, but this is not always true since legitimate Christian views are targeted for reverts, and then Christian editors are blocked indefinitely to silence them (with false allegations of disruptive editing), censoring out the Christian viewpoint.  This case speaks volumes to the issue of integrity and uprightness among a number of WP editors.  Blessed be the glorious Name of Jesus, forever and ever.  WalkerThrough (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus also said, "He who exalts himself shall be humbled." So shut up already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Idolatry of one's own views as "THE" only Godly view is the sort of thing Jesus criticized the religious authorities for.  If anyone here has "THE" only Christian view, He will be a bit busy with His second coming to be worried about this site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"The" Christian view
What you added to the Acts article and others was a Christian view, your holiness, not the only Christian view. To treat your views as the only Christian views is POV-pushing, and to say that this is only religious discrimination when (just from sheer statistics) most editors on Wikipedia would be Christian is just prouder than the Pharisees. Observable historical earthly influences on a text, belief in the divinity of and salvation through Christ, and belief that a text is divinely dictated are three different topics. A person's views on one topic does not absolutely determine their view on the others. If you are unblocked, do not label your views as the only Christian view there is, because you are not the only Christian here, and most do not get blocked. It's just rude.

Literary criticism is a historical study, not a theological one. As such, a theological source is about as appropriate as Richard Dawkins (who could be described as an atheological source). Is Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" a reliable source? Sure: if the topic is "Criticism of religion," but not say British politics (even if he discusses the latter). In other words, reliable sources must be relevant. Your not following this was original research.

Your addition to Acts was only about the Bible as a whole work, but Acts was originally written as an independant work and so we must treat it as such. Your failure to do so was original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ian about the heart, this is not about our opinions. This is about English.  One definition of the heart is the seat of the will and understanding http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,heart (that's Webster's).  It's true.  I didn't write the dictionary.  We can't ignore this is a definition of heart in addition to the physical organ of the heart.   WalkerThrough (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I discussed that: Heart as a metaphor for emotions (or the will) is still covered by "mental state." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are quite different, as the heart goes much deeper than the mind. The seat of your will and beliefs, means that exact thoughts may not surface to the mind, but they influence one's behavior.  They are quite different.  As such, both should be included.  This really does not need to be battle.  Can we work together to make it better, by adding some useful information?  WalkerThrough (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the unconscious mind, particularly the superego, which is still part of the mind. The mind is not just the conscious mind, and this has been understood since before modern psychology was even founded (this understanding is why modern psychology was founded).  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en-l], but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have deleted the page Talk:WalkerThrough that you made (perhaps it was on accident). If you wish to be unblocked, please send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thread moved from WP:ANI
Hello, I (User:WalkerThrough) am a newcomer and have been accused of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. My user page says I have been blocked indefinitely because of sockpuppetry (although there are other reasons as well, which I don't believe deserve an indef block). Could a neutral third party please review this charge? I used those 2 other accounts (Pageeditor7 and ServantofLord) for a total of only 3 edits combined before I knew the rule about sockpuppets. I changed my first name from ServantofLord when I realized this ID would not be so helpful on WP (that was my first account used for only 1 edit ever). When I learned about the rule, I reverted the only 2 edits I had made as Pageeditor7. Here are the diffs: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles&diff=prev&oldid=452187703   and   https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Judas_of_Galilee&diff=452189392&oldid=452079814. I don't want people to believe a wrongful charge against me, but nobody has removed that accusation. I have repeatedly explained this to MuZemike (admin who put the notice about sockpuppetry). He has been unwilling to remove the post, which makes me think this is an abuse of power. I have already had another admin (Maunus) tell me that what I did was not technically sockpuppetry. In terms of my indef block, Maunus also stated that he thought it was very harsh. As I said, I'm a newcomer. I tried my best to follow all policies and admin (Black Kite) gave me an indef block citing 2 edits I made that were properly sourced and don't break any policies. He even said on his talk page, Sept. 30 "but quite frankly I was only half way down the first page of contributions since the previous block before I hit the button. But then that's just me :)." I thought an indef block was given for serious and intentional patterns of transgressing policy.  I do understand now that if I want to make any controversial religious edits, I would first need to get consensus on the talk page.  I also now understand how someone may consider my edits disruptive, which I did not intend.  I apologize for any edits that really were disruptive.  Also, when I politely asked admin Bwilkins to review my block (you can email me to see my email to him), he responded:

"As long as you disgustingly believe that your block was "unjust" you will never be unblocked. "Indefinite" is not "infinite" ... It means until the community believes you won't reoffend. Well, you are the most disgusting Christian I have ever met. It's not all about you, and you've been acting 180 degrees against what our Lord taught. Now fuck off, non-Christian scum."

I was quite shocked that someone who behaves like this in doing administrative tasks is allowed to be a WP admin. Anyways, could someone please help a newcomer? -WalkerThrough
 * P.S. When I was unhappy about the sockpuppetry accusation, I removed the notice twice when I was not logged in. I did not know the rule about block evasion.  Now I know it, and have stopped doing such behavior.  -WalkerThrough  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're socking right now. N o f o rmation  Talk  07:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So who abused their powers exactly? You've named three admins in the same breath (Muzemike, Black Kite and BWilkins). That's a lot of admin abuse. Of course: accusations of admin abuse usually equal... admins getting abused. What uninvolved administrative action against the alleged abusers is your goal? Doc   talk  07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but sockpuppetry is when you act like another person. I've stated in all my posts that I am WalkerThrough. This also applies to the sockpuppetry investigation for the IP addresses in which I said I'm WalkerThrough (I'm not trying to deceive anyone as if I'm someone else).  -WalkerThrough 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are blocked and are not allowed to edit here, using an IP to avoid that block is a form of socking. N o f o rmation  Talk  07:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved and I don't want to be involved, but if Bwilkins actually said this, he should be ashamed of himself, these words are not very fitting of a Christian (or sysop for that matter) and it comes across as self-righteous. If he didn't actually say this and the blocked (ab)user is lying or distorting the truth, than I apologize to Bwilkins and others who may have concerns. God bless, — CharlieEchoTango  — 07:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can forward the email to anyone of Bwilkins saying this to me in response to my request for a block request. -WalkerThrough  180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing all of them of abuse of power. It seems to me that MuZemike is abusing his power in putting a notice that I'm blocked indef because of sockpuppetry after repeated explanations of the situation.  I'm also wondering if Black Kite is abusing his power by giving me an indef block after, according to his own words, only looking at a half page of contribs.  I have emailed him trying to tell him what I've learned and how I thought those edits were acceptable, as well as apologizing for any real disruptive editing.  The administrative actions I would highly appreciate is to have the sockpuppetry notice removed for the 3 accounts.  I would be happy to put an explicit tag on Pageeditor7 and ServantofLord that they are retired.  I would also appreciate someone unblocking me, since it seems that an indef block is very harsh when I'm a newcomer trying to follow policy.  I have already been blocked for a number of days.   -WalkerThrough 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from an uninvolved admin: I won't comment on the supposed comments by Bwilkins, or the "admin abuse" allegations. I will, however, state that while you have repeatedly claimed that you're "trying to follow policy", your actions both before your block and since are anything but trying to follow policy. Actions speak louder than words, and, speaking bluntly, every action that you have taken has, to my eyes at least, further justified the block (which it was to start with, in case that's not clear - just making it more so) and making it less likely for you to be unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just about the worst way for you to appeal your block. Carefully read WP:GAB and go through the normal channels. Doc   talk  07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if this is not the correct channel, but I can't edit my talk page. I did email the unblock list.  However, MuZemike, who is an involved admin, the one that blocked me (in my opinion unfairly) for sockpuppetry, emailed me back saying he can't unblock me because I have not addressed the issues for the block.  I did not get a response when I emailed the list again yesterday apologizing if there were any disruptive edits, and stating that I've learned I need consensus first.  I would like to resolve this without going to the ArbCom.  Seeing as I can't edit anything with my user account, I have come here for help.  -WalkerThrough 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've been informed that you're breaking the rules and that this is not the correct venue, so stop posting and go back to official channels.  N o f o rmation  Talk  08:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And as the blocking admin, I am not going to unblock. I did originally state at ANI that anyone could unblock without consulting me if they believed the editor was here to contribute constructively, but the further editing patterns that emerged in the ANI  changed my mind on that.  In fact, I'm not completely convinced we're not being trolled here; but even if we're not, it's very clear that this editor does not understand how Wikipedia works and this is going to have to change if they are going to edit here again. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, WalkerThrough almost also emailed me, which included " I would also like the unfair charge of sock puppetry dropped. Can we do this the easy way? I don't want you to run the risk of losing your adminship. If I don't hear from you soon, I plan to proceed to the Arb. Com.".  Which, given that he's socking right now through an IP, probably sums the issue up. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for clairification, what did you mean by "almost emailed you"? - SudoGhost 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that he meant "also" instead of "almost", though he could be amazingly psychic in a way that's beyond my understanding of reality. But ArbCom it is - run that risk Black Kite. Doc   talk  09:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes it was supposed to be "also". My fingers lose communication with my brain sometimes. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not quite good enough. The best way to resolve this is to perform a little-known but perfectly acceptable move: a "flip-flop". Resign your admin status immediately and transfer it to WalkerThrough, making that account an admin. It's only fair. Doc   talk  09:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What a suggestion!!
 * I have been off line for a few days - I'm travelling - I was both surprised and disappointed at how this has developed. I cannot condone Walker using another name whether or not it was real sockputtery (is there such a word?) However here we have a new editor who fell at just about every hurdle, and was admonished with warnings and bans.  Yet each time he got up again, made his apology, resolved to learn and tried again.
 * I am horrified that any admin can say of such a learner we're clearly better off without this editor. Lugnad (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me rephrase it "we're clearly better off without this editor unless they radically change their approach to editing". The problem is, they haven't, and have shown no acknowledgement that their editing is disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I am far from home I am unable to have a long conversation. If you are saying that the door is not permanently slammed shut, perhaps you could better define what you expect from Walker, for example you could expect him to apologise for posting under another id, and he could be asked not to edit bible-related articles without first proposing the edit on the talk page.  Lugnad (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first step, which he needs to communicate to ArbCom, is that he understands why his editing has led to his block. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lugnad - If you look back through the history of the talk page here, and at AN/I, and at his editing, you'll quickly realise why that was said, and most likely agree. "Yet each time he got up again, made his apology, resolved to learn and tried again." - and continued the same behavior without alteration despite those resolutions. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What bwilkins said was intemperate, and inappropriate as an administrator who revoked talk page access. However, I understand exactly what and why Bwilkins said what he did as an individual Christian, in response to another person who in someway tried to represent all Christians as victim of anti-Christian bias. It is a sore spot for many, many Christians, who have found their faith and reputation yoked to a minority.--Tznkai (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me point out here that conversation with Bwilkins off-wiki leads me to believe that that may not be the actual content of what he sent to Walker, if he sent anything. Please hold off on the pitchforks and torches unless/until Bwilkins can either confirm or deny that such an email was sent. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the statement implies any pitchfork, in fact the opposite. Bwilkins reacted wrong, but understandably so. The most that could be required would be an apology for strong language. No other repercussions seem warranted, and the block of course still stands untill another admin lifts it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that Bwilkins reacted wrong [sic]. Does this means you have judged the case without hearing Bwilkins's account, or that Bwilkins has privately communicated with you? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should of course have said "if the report is correct Bwilkins acted wrongly..." but it seems irrelevant given that I am arguing that it should have no consequence. Please leave out the [sic]'s in the future they generally serve only to patronize.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (E/C)I assume that WalkerThrough is not deliberately fabricating. Furthermore, the language, while stronger than what he has already written, is consistent with comments that Bwilkins made at WP:ANI. I'm not convinced that an apology is necessary at this point, but certainly wouldn't hurt. I just hope he (I seem to recall Bwilkins being a he, but maybe I've forgotten something?) takes this as a caution into the future.--Tznkai (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the last part ("Fuck off, non-Christian scum") is highly inconsistant, considering that Bwilkins was objecting to WalkerThrough refusal to respect non-Christians ("fundamentalists like this who refuse to compromise with others"). Looking over an older version of the talk page, it's clear that WalkerThrough's other behavior includes assuming that all his actions are correct, assuming that any correction of his behavior is persecution, assuming that any disagreement results from other users being mean ol' non-Christians, and treating any undeniable misbehavior as a misunderstanding. Seems to match the following: "Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;" "Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment;" and "Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict." Given this, I'm wary to assume too much good faith without evidence (especially since Bwilkins has stated that any such email is falsified). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since its now in controversy, I'm not going to assume anything one way or another.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from 

I was brought here by the automated RfC notification, although I do recall seeing the matter being discussed at ANI. I've read through the archived Talk page material, as well as the wall of text above, but have not yet examined the actual article edits in question. The first thing that strikes me is 's complete confidence in their faith, which in my experience is an extremely personal and subjective matter. The second thing that becomes apparent is that WalkerThrough does not want that faith challenged in any manner or form, even through the vehicle of a Wikipedia article. This is where the meat of the situation lies, I believe: there's opposition between said confidence in faith and the content of the article, which, based on the discussion, would appear to contradict certain aspects of that faith. So why is this bad for Wikipedia? In short, it violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and at least four other core policies that come to mind without even thinking about it. Wikipedia articles are derived from reliable, verifiable sources, which may not agree with what a particular editor is absolutely convinced is the truth. This is why Wikipedia operates on consensus, rather than voting or simple assertion. Therefore, WalkerThrough can correctly be termed "tendentious", based on the commentary from all other parties so far. Before I comment further, I will review the edits in the articles in question. Since a full RfC has been posted, and I infer by the commentary that the matter has been (or is in the process of being) referred to ArbCom, it may be wiser for me to reserve further comments until others have voiced theirs and/or ArbCom has examined the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The archived talk page doesn't contain all of the information that was present on the talk page, as the editor removed a good deal of individual comments from conversations. While doing so is not in violation of WP:TPO, I think these comments might be relevant for any individuals being brought to this page that had not been part of those conversations.  - SudoGhost 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that, according to the block log, I did not block WalkerThrough in any way, shape, or form. The only thing I have done was tag the group of socks as such. I still stand by my call that there has been abuse of multiple accounts here, but I feel the sock puppetry is minor as compared to the actual block, which was for disruption. That needs to be addressed before we go anywhere. –MuZemike 20:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin note
The user in question has come to wikipedia with a clear, specific agenda to promote a "cause". In my years of observation, that type of editor is a source of nothing but trouble on wikipedia, and typically ends up being indef'd and often banned. If you unblock him, you can bet he will quickly get himself re-blocked. So if you're considering an unblock, ask yourselves whether it's worth your time and trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with BB, and suggest that WalkerThrough has little to offer Wikipedia compared to the disruption he is causing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What triggered this second block, apart from the multiple accounts? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the blocks were due to multiple account abuse; the other accounts were discovered after the last indefinite block. –MuZemike 22:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

More empty threats
WalkerThrough is still emailing me threatening to have me desysopped by ArbCom - the latest one is "I think there is some evidence that could look badly for you at ArbCom, and I'd rather not bring that up there. As Doc said, you would be running a risk of losing your adminship if we go to ArbCom.  I don't think this situation is worth risking what I'm sure you worked very hard to get.". He doesn't seem to comprehend that he actually needs to email ArbCom to request unblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Such un-Christ-like behavior has me pretty well convinced that he's not really a devout Christian, he's merely trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said that?! Whoosh! - right over his head. It's called sarcasm, and... oh, never mind. Doc   talk  23:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what the blocked user said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Doc was referencing the "As Doc said, you would be running a risk of losing your adminship if we go to ArbCom..." comment, which apparently WalkerThrough took from this comment. - SudoGhost 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...and Bingo was his name-o!" You didn't you eat your Wheaties today, did you Bugs? ;P Doc   talk  00:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. No, it was Sugar Frosted Flakes, and the sugar frosting is about gone, leaving just the flake. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, do you really think this line of action is fair? He's indeffed, has been told about WP:OFFER, is unable to edit this page, has been told that editing it as an IP is a major offence - and some chances are he's not even online on Sunday. Can we stop dancing on his grave at this point, and leave him a little dignity and respect for the next 6 months before WP:OFFER kicks in? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless additional action is anticipated, you could just as well blank out this page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)