User talk:CATFARTS

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- The Anome (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So why are you requesting a rename, based that the current name [in your opinion] doesn't violate the project's policy? Tropicalkitty (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the great question Tropicalkitty. The answer to which is that I was not given a choice. The blocking editor appears to have fixed the terms of appeal to require selection of a new username. Following an example in the above referenced guide to appealing blocks, I removed the "user=" portion of the command block to avoid changing my username. Although the syntax was correct, when previewing my appeal I was presented with a BIG, RED, BOLD message at the top informing me that I must choose a new username in order to proceed. In fact, there was another message right below indicating that this particular user was "requesting a new username so that (I) can appeal a block." Have a good evening! CATFARTS (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

...I apologize. I had that last bit backwards, as it actually stated that I am requesting to be unblocked so that i can request a new username. Sigh, I do wish that I didn't have to change my username. Considering that real profanity occurs within actual Wikipedia articles, and I don't even use, nor do I allow my children to use minced epithets. I value and strive to foster a culture of mutual respect. I guess I now know not to expect the same from editors of Wikipedia. It is situations like this, however small, that gradually chip away at ones hope for a better future. The knowledge that you can try to do everything for the right reasons, yet may still fall victim to false accusations for which you are publicly shamed and punished without benefit of due process, is a bit depressing. CATFARTS (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fancy talk. But chromyl chloride's boiling point? Really? Sigma-Aldritch say its BP is 117 °C., page 31 of ISBN 9780471856436 says it's 116 °C (search for "isbn:9780471856436 chloride" in Google Book Search). NIOSH says it's 243 °F which is roughly 117 °C. And then there's you, CATFARTS, who says it's 11.7 °C, which makes it a gas at STP. Which is strange, because all the sources I've looked at describe it as a red liquid at STP. Can you please tell us why we should believe you instead of them, particularly when you state that this is a safety issue? Otherwise, given the above, I think we can simply decide that you're WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, and be done with it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)