Bob Blaylock

Hi!

I noticed your edit to Downtown Sacramento and I wanted to thank you. It slipped my mind that it could have a reference to Heather Fargo on that page. I was going to "officially" welcome you to wikipedia (your talk page was a red link) when I looked at your contribs, and noticed you've edited off and on for over a year now. Well, I wanted to say "hi" and "keep up the good work" (both horrible cliches, but oh well). On another unrelated topic, I noticed you work for Cambell's. Nice. Killiondude (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, now you don't have a red-linked talk page. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are great.I like the images of algae taken by you.I am also working on algae.My name is Akshay Adamuthe.I live in India

Answerbag

Hi, I've been a veteran of Answerbag since the site was less than a year old. What Q&A sites do you visit now? I am now on Yedda much of the time. (Answerbag has jumped the shark for many users.) --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Alas, there really are no other sites comparable to Answerbag.  I think I was probably there as about as early as you, when Answerbag was still very new.  It seemed to me, at one point, that it started very rapidly going downhill.  I peek in on it occasionally, mostly to see what my brother (who is still active there) has been posting, but I've seen nothing to make me want to go back to being an active user there.  I've tried a few other Q&A-type sites, but none of them really did it for me. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Staphylus

Hello, I undid your editlet me know if my reason is not clear. Jeepday (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:20091014 001914 FrancoAmericanSpaghetti.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:20091014 001914 FrancoAmericanSpaghetti.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Edwin Rushton photo

Hi. Some controversy has arisen regarding the copyright status (if any) of File:EdwinRushton.jpg. The editor who recently reviewed White Horse Prophecy for promotion to a "Good Article" questioned whether the photo really is in the public domain in the US. This turns out to be a more complicated question than "author unknown, but the photograph is well over a hundred years old, so does it really matter?" — apparently it really does matter.

You said the source of the picture was "a photograph in my Book of Remembrance". Can you tell me whether the picture really is an original photographic print, or if it was copied from or cut out of a book, newspaper, or other publication? And is there any indication (possibly written on the back of the photo) of an author, photographic studio, etc.? Or is it really, really just a photograph, taken by who-knows-who, handed down in your family and mounted in your Book of Remembrance, with nothing written on it, and absolutely no other clue regarding how it came to exist?

As part of getting White Horse Prophecy promoted to a Good Article, I agreed to remove Edwin Rushton's photo from the article until such time (if ever) that the image's copyright status can be definitively and unarguably established. I wouldn't mind restoring the photo to the article, but this can only happen if a consensus can be reached at Commons that the picture really is in the public domain in the US.

I'd be grateful for any additional information or assistance you can offer me. Thanks. — Richwales (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  As of this point, I do not know that there is any possible way to establish who took this picture, or who ever might have held or claimed any copyright on it.  The “Book of Remembrance”, in this case, is something that was once a tradition among Mormons; a sort of a scrapbook containing various materials relevant to its owner's ancestry and heritage.  The specific photograph is in the form of a small (about an inch wide by an inch and a half high) photographic print, glued among several others to a sort of a photographic pedigree chart, prepared a very long time ago by my paternal grandmother.  I can only assume that she had this picture, and probably the negative thereof, because this was of one of her own ancestors, in this case, her maternal grandfather.   (I believe she produced similar pages for several of my cousins around the same time, so I presume she had access then to the negative from which to have as many prints made as she needed of this and other photographs that she used for this purpose.) She's been dead now, for more than twenty years, so I cannot very well ask her where she got this picture.  I think I can definitively say that it was not “copied from or cut out of a book, newspaper, or other publication”, and that “just a photograph, taken by who-knows-who, handed down in your family and mounted in your Book of Remembrance, with nothing written on it, and absolutely no other clue regarding how it came to exist” is really about the best possible description of its origin.

  It's difficult to imagine how this photograph could possibly fall under any extant copyright.  Edwin Rushton died in 1904—more than a hundred years ago—at the age of about eighty years, and this photograph appears to be of him at a considerably younger age than that.  This photograph cannot possibly be any less than one hundred eight (108) years old, and is most likely considerably older than that.  It's impossible to establish who took the picture, but it is very likely the the photographer has been dead for at least a hundred years, and almost certain that the photographer has been dead for at least seventy years.

  If it's of any use to know who is connected to whom, I refer you to my pedigree chart at this URL:  [deleted]  The person who prepared the page on which this photograph appears is Edna Verl Field, who appears at position 5 on this chart.  She is my father's mother; and her mother (11) was a daughter of Edwin Rushton (22).

— Bob Blaylock (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The people at Commons are very conservative in their interpretation of copyright laws — they really, really don't want anything which might (even by totally innocent accident) be covered by a copyright and not freely usable without any strings attached. The last word I got (a short time ago) was that "it is very, very likely that this image is [public domain under US law], but we can't be entirely sure". I'll pass this latest info from you along to the Commons people and see what they say now. BTW, I am LDS and am familiar with the "Book of Remembrance" practice. I also took the liberty of deleting the URL above pointing to your pedigree chart, in order to lessen the chance of giving anything useful to identity thieves. Thanks again for replying to me with this information. — Richwales (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  So what is the current status of this controversy?  I assume that the photograph ought to have been deleted by now from the Commons if it could not be reliably enough be established as having no copyright issues.  Otherwise, it ought to have been put back into the White Horse Prophecy article. Neither of these have yet been done. — Bob Blaylock (talk)

Hi. I restored the Edwin Rushton photo to the article. I included a link to the Commons discussion in the talk page. I agree that if the Commons people are comfortable with having the picture stay, then there is no valid reason not to use it here on Wikipedia. — Richwales 07:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Spirogyra image

Dear Bob Blaylock, I'm currently writing a popular science book about the evolution of locomotion (biological, not trains!) to be published by Basic Books and Icon next year. I'm looking for a picture of Spirogyra to include (in a section about Leeuwenhoek) and found your wonderful photographs. I'm particularly keen on <3x2 millimeters of Spirogyra.jpg>. Would you be able to grant permission for me to use this image, and if so, how would you like to be credited? Many thanks, and best wishes, Matt Wilkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwilkinson-ucz (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bob Blaylock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sacramento RT Franklin Station Arch.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sacramento RT Franklin Station Arch.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  I wasn't clear on how to properly tag it to reflect the situation, but I think my intent ought to be clear enough.  This picture is my own work, I hold and reserve all rights to it, and it is my wish to allow it to be used for this purpose; while retaining all other rights to it.  If you are clear on how to properly tag this picture in order to reflect my ownership of it, and my intent to allow this use of it, please feel free to do so. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept images which are restricted to use only on Wikipedia. Fair use images must meet all of the non-free content criteria. This image is replaceable as somebody can easily go to the location and snap freely licensed photo. --Whpq (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  Seriously?  I'm not allowed to contribute one of my works to Wikipedia, while still retaining all other rights to it?  In that case, go ahead and delete it, then. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is the creation of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This freedom includes the creation of free content as stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Since you prefer not to release the image under a free license, the image isn't usable in a Wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bob Blaylock. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your hobby

I was listening to Dawkins' audiobook of The Ancestor's Tale and when I heard him speak of bdelloid rotifers, I came to Wikipedia (of course!) to find out more. Your microscopic pics were a great help, and then I found your page.

Thanks for contributing. Even though in only some small way, my life has been improved by seeing these images and it made me laugh. Here we have these tiny rotifers and we think we're so big and important. But here you have affected me from across the world, and it makes it seem like we are little rotifers in comparison to something even larger than us. I suspect Dawkins would smile. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bob Blaylock. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

DS Alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

May 2021

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Transgender for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are 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. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 02:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Re your question on pseudoscience, transgender topics are widely covered in reputable scientific journals. A general perusal of Google Scholar yields up the quite the gold mine. So unlike pseudoscience items such as say alternative medicine, transgender topics have received significant affirming study in quality journals. While certainly many aspects require further study, there is no question that it is a genuine phenomena. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  If there is really any genuine scientific support for “transgenderism” then why is no such evidence provided in the article?  Why does the article contain only a very terse mention of anything to do with science, with no attempt to use science to justify the idea that someone who, by every objective provable criteria is of one sex, can in any way be the opposite of that sex?  To any rational appearance, the entire article is presenting as if it were credible truth, a premise that appears, at best, to be pseudoscience, if not an outright repudiation of science.

  I know that it is fashionable, these days, to profess belief in this premise, and to even condemn as “hateful”, “bigoted”, and “transphobic” anyone who dares to question it.  But such passing fads do not make truth.  Hans Christian Andersen wrote, centuries ago, about the very same phenomenon that we are seeing today, with regard to “Transgenderism”, in his classic tale The Emperor's New Clothes, in which a great falsehood was presented, and the foolish populous was intimidated into playing along with the lie for fear of how they would be judged if they dared to speak the truth that every last one of them could clearly see.

  Surely it is a valid purpose of the article's Talk Page to question whether the premise of the article is even true.  I think the fact that my doing so was censored from there stands as prima facie proof that the one doing the censoring knows that the article is false, and that it can only stand if those who dare to question it are silenced.  That is not how anyone ever behaves who knows that the truth is on his side.  That is how one behaves who knows that he is lying, and can only prevail by suppressing the truth.

— Bob Blaylock (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is sourced. If you have questions about the reliability of a source you can raise them. You can also present other reliable sources to expand the article or provide appropriate context. But asking whether an article's premise is true is the sort of philosophical debate we don't have on Wiki. You must obviously see you've walked into a culture wars issue, which we purposefully do not litigate on Wikipedia. We can present what reliable sources say, but we do not argue on the merits of a topic. I'd you believe we should not cover the topic as we do, please present some RS that say as much. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  The article is sourced up the wazoo as far as claims, terminology, symbology, legal principles, and such.  But the whole article rests on the premise that one who has male DNA, a male reproductive system, and by every objective biological criterion, is male; can somehow be female; or vice versa.  If that premise is false, then the entire article is solid digestive waste from a male bovine.  The article makes no attempt whatever to support this premise scientifically; and in fact, doing so would be impossible, since all science solidly refutes this premise.  I say that “Transgenderism” has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience, and rationally needs to be treated as such.

  Just as I was writing this response, a term popped into my head, along with a faint memory of having come across it some time ago, in a context that I can no longer remember:  Otherkin  The Wikipedia article on the subject is not very well-developed.  I think if it were, you'd probably have to agree with me that otherkinism would be a form of pseudoscience, and that this should be stated as such in that article.  So, other than the current degree of popularity, how is transgenderism any different from otherkinism?

 — Bob Blaylock (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There are significant sources available, one only needs look. See [1], [2] that I found with just a minutes searching. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not going to let myself be gish gallopped with a bunch of manure from a male bovine that makes no real effort to support the point that they are supposed to support.  Of the two sources that you presented, one is pretty typical of what I have seen, addressing the scientific side of the issue by simply dismissing science because it fails to support the premise that the article intents to support.  If anything, this seems to support my point that “transgenderism” is not reconcilable with genuine science.  The second link leads to an abstract that really doesn't tell much about what the whole article claims, and I see no link to it that leads to anywhere where I can read the whole article.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Transgender, you may be blocked from editing. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 17:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Blaylock, in case itʻs not clear by now, talk pages of articles are not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. It doesnʻt matter if you think you need to set the record straight or you think other people need to know the Truth. My advice is to stop accusing other editors of censorship, and definitely to stop trying to initiate general discussion about your beliefs about transgender people at Talk:Transgender. If you donʻt do so, you could be risking a block in a few different ways: knowingly not following talk page guidelines, for one, and potentially disruptive editing or even discretionary sanctions. Iʻm saying this not as a threat but because I want to be sure youʻre aware. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 17:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev — At this point, your abuse of my talk page appears to be an instance of the very misconduct of which you are falsely accusing me.  In any event, if you do not like being accused of such misconduct as censorship, then it really helps to to not openly and unabashedly engage in that very misconduct.  I know that we are supposed to assume “good faith”, but how am I supposed to assume that, when you behave in a manner that so solidly proves that you are acting in anything but good faith?  Coming over to my talk page and threatening me, harassing me, and trying to intimidate me into shutting up; that is abusive, and if it continues, I will seek whatever sanctions are available to seek against you for this outrageous behavior on your part.  I invite you to depart, and to apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 19:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv🍁 19:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mildew From Shower Curtain

I just drop by to say Thanks A Lot for your description of https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:20110605_195711_MildewFromShowerCurtain.jpg . That really made my day. To quote you
As much as you and I might wish it to be a nicer number, such as ten, it isn't; and if you edit this description to say that it is, then you are wrong for doing so.
No one could have said it better. Keep up the good work. Rava77 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Transphobia for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are 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 the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob, I'd just like to add that you were incredibly lucky to avoid serious sanction the last time you waded into this topic area. Clearly the administrators were feeling generous that day. If you get yourself dragged to ANI again it will almost certainly go a lot worse for you than it did the last time. That doesn't have to happen. You can just drop the stick. Now would be a great time to find some other topics where you are able to edit constructively and to focus on those instead. DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I invite you to depart and apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles.  I have no respect at all for cowardly shit that think that their opinions can only be upheld by threats and censorship. Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)