User talk:Lord and Sovereign of Truth

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Richard Lynn has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Richard Lynn was changed by Lord and Sovereign of Truth (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881093 on 2016-01-06T06:40:16+00:00.

Please do not blank pages, as you did to User:Miradre/Nations_and_intelligence with this edit, because it is considered vandalism; instead, use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is being used as the source to insert racist pseudoscience into the Nations and intelligence page, which I have nominated for deletion, since I thought the encylopedia was not the place to spread fringe, discredited race science as if it was fact. Besides, there are already multiple pages on this topic: Race and Intelligence, History of the race and intelligence controversy, Scientific Racism. This page was only created to promote the fringe theories of pseudoscientist Richard Lynn, and to allow erroneous content to be inserted into the encylopedia that would not be allowed on the other pages. Please help. Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nations and intelligence
You have it on AFD, no need to bulk delete sections. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See wp:BRD You've been bold, you have been reverted. Discuss in talk before removal. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Jim, I suggest you read the rest of that article more carefully. It may have a thin veneer of being sourced and intelligible, but the prose is extremely ungrammatical and unreadable and unlikely to have been originally written in English, and the theories are extremely fringe. Have a closer look and you will see what I mean. I'm not the only one who has noticed this, look someone else hung a "please copy-edit" tag on the article. But the prose is too full of nonsense to be salvaged.Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nations and intelligence, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Nations and intelligence. Jim1138 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, I ask again: how much of that article have you actually read? It's barely readable chinese prose ungrammatically translated into english with no discernible point other than to make undefensible racist claims. Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, looking a little more closely at your contributions so far, I come across comments like "All I know is that the second I nominated their ridiculous obvious hoax nonsense article for deletion, these two goose-stepping frauds try to have me banned from the encyclopedia. THEY should be banned. They are using the encylopedia as a place to disseminate their neo-nazi ideology" (at Sockpuppet investigations/World Champion Editor). Personal attacks like that are absolutely prohibited here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are, but are not WP:HOAX articles filled with pseudoscientific fake references and garbled English with multiple grammatical errors per sentence also absolutely prohibited? Aren't you concerned at all about that article's presence here? I challenge you to actually read the whole thing and tell me it belongs in the encylopedia and is actually a competent piece of prose (even leaving aside the lack of real referencing, pseudoscience,long discredited hoax aspect.) instead of reading up on my contributions, just read the article itself. I'm not the one who hung the copy-editing needed tag on it. The article is I unreferenced, ungrammatical patent nonsense by a non-English speaker. Please read it. World Champion Editor (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically not reading the article as I wish only to act in an admin capacity and that precludes making any judgment about the article contents. My only interest here is in your behaviour in pursuing your goals and to prevent your abuse of process and of other editors. Oh, and by the way, you forgot to log out of World Champion Editor and back into Lord and Sovereign of Truth before commenting here - but never mind, I've blocked that one now for obvious abuse of multiple accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)