User talk:LightProof1995

This is mostly for LilianaUwU, since I upset her, but also for others.

I don't feel my statements apply to all trans people.

If you were the reincarnation of a woman, and that caused your gender dysphoria, you'd know.

Gender dysphoria can be caused by other things. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Umm… how…? Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Dronebogus! Thanks for your question :) I'm not sure if you are asking how one would realize they are the reincarnation of the opposite sex, or how gender dysphoria can be caused by anything except reincarnation. Luckily, the answer to both questions are similar, although keep in mind I'm no expert on gender topics.

If one's gender dysphoria were caused by reincarnation, I assume it would be the kind where you knew from a very young age your gender identity didn't match up with your body. I assume, if I met someone who were actually the opposite sex in a past life, and because of that they've had gender dysphoria their entire life, upon hearing this idea from me that reincarnation could've caused it, it would just "click" for them, like "oh wow, I can totally see that being the case with me."

If one's gender dysphoria came about later in their life, I don't think reincarnation would be the cause. Some argue societal influence can cause gender dysphoria, but many argue this is transphobic to say, or at least controversial. According to this source,^[1] some experts believe gender dysphoria may be caused by hormones, genes, or environmental influences. I'm assuming hormonal-related causes tend to occur during teenage years, while a gene-related cause would be from birth. I guess it would actually be difficult for a trans person who had gender dysphoria their entire life to truly know whether it was caused by genetics or reincarnation, but not impossible. Meditation and other spiritual practices can help you connect with your past lives -- this would be a direct way to discover the sex of your previous life. Dr. Ian Stevenson and others made plenty of connections between living persons and their previous lives by interviewing children about their past-life memories; this would be another direct way of doing it. Similarly, it may be possible to have genetic testing done to determine if that could potentially have caused your gender dysphoria. Epigenetics have been shown to effect sexual orientation and could also possibly affect gender dysphoria from a young age.

One last thing to keep in mind is that some of these causes could be related, in ways we don't yet understand. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd completely forgotten the rules about User pages (I joined over a year ago) and I agree with the deletion of my user page. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi LightProof... you're clearly an enthusiastic editor. Rosguill has placed an indefinite block on you and I'd like to explain what that means. Blocks are never made as a punishment and indefinite does not mean "forever". Blocks are placed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, an emergency stop if you like. There were various policy issues that kept coming up in the ANI discussion that, if they could be solved, might render this block unnecessary.

I would like to offer to help you understand how to be a better editor. It'll take some time and effort and will require some work from you. Are you willing to give it a go? As it stands you are not likely to succeed in a block appeal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And just in case you're tempted, attempting to circumvent the block by creating a new account or editing as an IP will result in a lifetime block that will be near-impossible to appeal against successfully, so please don't do that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware sockpuppetry is futile and stupid (in regards to getting around bans). LightProof1995 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Good... there's a few things to bear in mind at this point:

1. To avoid unrealistic expectations, I'm expecting this to last for several months. My goal is to get you to the point where no topic ban is required and I'm confident that you don't need any supervision.

2. If I'm not comfortable with your block/topic bans being lifted, and I can't see any further route forward, I will regard this process as failed and I will not endorse any unblocking. You are free at that point, or at any other point in the process, to seek mentorship from another experienced editor. You will probably have difficulty finding a willing volunteer as they will view your case as very difficult.

3. This is not a debate. Everything I present will be per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We can discuss things and you are free to ask questions for clarification, but arguing your position probably won't be constructive.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

A couple of questions...

1. What are the processes of mentorship? What steps are we going to take going forward, that will take months to complete?

2. I think it will be extremely difficult to get me unblocked and unbanned. The entire community banned me. Even an editor that I worked on the Land article with came in to recommend a site ban, I think because they took an edit of mine personally (re-adjusting the headers)^[1] just because they had re-adjusted them the previous day.^[2] Clearly they felt attacked by my edit summary for saying "rules" but this is just a word? They claim I should've used the Talk Page instead of the edit summary, but it's not like I knew that, or that that's even stated anywhere (isn't this the technique I was technically using?) It felt like they all ganged up on me, out of nowhere. From what I can tell, my only options are to appeal to the community again, or to the Arbitration Committee. Which route were you envisioning as the best to get me unbanned, when used in conjunction with an endorsement from you?

Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I can unblock you with a couple of mouse clicks. Any admin can. I could have also blocked you without resorting to the ANI discussion, but there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. You would not last long if you were unblocked without some mentoring.

There is no formal protocol for mentorship. I will be taking you gradually through Wikipedia policy and pointing out where you're going wrong. Sometimes I will be blunt, but it will never be personal... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think just clicking and unblocking me is going to work, my friend. You can unblock me, but that doesn't unban me.

Another question -- have you mentored anyone before? LightProof1995 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You were site-banned because there was consensus that your editing was at odds with policies that have been put in place to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. If, at the end of this, you can demonstrate that you understand this and that you can edit within policy in collaboration with other editors, I will start a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. It would have to gain consensus and there would probably be caveats imposed, but I won't start that discussion until I feel there is a chance of it succeeding. We have a bit of work to do in the meantime.

Yes, I have mentored many people. It is part of my job. It's usually not necessary to formally declare a mentoring agreement on WP, but this is a somewhat unique situation. If you don't feel comfortable with my ability then we can halt this now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Jim, I wasn't suggesting I was uncomfortable with your mentoring ability. I was just asking if you've been a mentor before :) LightProof1995 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Jim,

Thank you for this offer. Assuming you're referring to this, I accept!! :)

Feel free to tell me a little more about yourself here, and to ask me whatever you'd like about myself.

I am 27, per my username, lol. Happy St. Patrick's Day :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Not much to tell really... I'm head of a scientific research group based in a university (one reason I wasn't particularly impressed with Counihan's credentials). I've been working in universities for just over thirty years, started editing on Wikipedia fifteen years ago and have been an admin here for twelve years.

My first piece of advice would be to slow down. A lot of the mistakes you made (and there have been a lot) are down to you rushing. You're not taking time to read sources properly (or at all) before citing them. You're not taking time to try to consider other editors' views. You're not taking time to understand Wikipedia policy. I think we can work on this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing a little about yourself! I find your credentials extremely impressive and relevant, and your advice substantial :)

I have a Bachelor's of Science in Environmental Science, with a Computer Science minor, but that's it -- I'm not even a grad student. My job title is software developer -- I can code in Python, Java, JavaScript, C#, VB.NET, MATLAB, R, etc.

I've found a couple of essays I've now read that I think apply to my situation. I just felt I was being bold. However, it seems I may be beyond bold, i.e. I am a tiger, or possibly one of these.

I think it will be difficult to learn how not to be this way. I think it is a part of who I am. My instincts tell me that when I see inaccurate information, fix it right away, and if someone disagrees, fight!! Because I'm bold, not timid!! It's inaccurate information, and since what I say is true, surely it will be what is left on Wikipedia, in the end. However, it seems this is not Wikipedia policy.

On Wikipedia, the strong and passionate may be able to get their views on Wikipedia, for some time. But the patient and easygoing win the war. They may seem like they are simply not reading my sources or my arguments, so as soon as someone does, my truthful information will go live, right? Wrong. Not only are they not reading my arguments, they can't even focus on them because they are too keen on seeing me out the door. By ignoring everything I say, they seem stupid, like they just don't understand what I'm saying at all. However if it's some editor that's been here 10+ years, it is guaranteed they are cunning, even as they are boring and uncooperative. (I'm not talking about you here, although I am sure you are cunning.)

Their view is not to get accurate information on Wikipedia asap. Their view is not to listen to some editor that's only been here a year or two. Their only view is their own, and if an editor can't give them the opportunity to write their feelings on the subject, that editor must go, even if what that editor was arguing was correct. The editor of 10+ years has all the time in the world -- they don't care to see accurate information go live asap, they only care about painfully slow procedures, like building this particularly frustrating thing called consensus on Talk Pages, before a single edit is even made. Anyone who makes an edit without asking the community first is being quite bold, and if that edit is the Picts were tatted and covered in war paint? When the article hasn't said that for a decade? What a laugh that editor is. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of divination, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of hunting, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of the wheel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of cooking, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @CactiStaccingCrane, I agree with limiting voting of vital articles so that we we focus more on improving the articles themselves. In order to do this, I suggest we implement the limits as follows:

For lists/categories at quota, only swaps should be proposed.

For lists/categories over quota, only removals should be proposed.

For lists/categories under quota, only additions should be proposed.

I understand proposals take time and some proposals may still be ongoing even after the status of their lists' quotas has changed e.g. from under-quota to over-quota. I only feel proposals should be limited at the time of their initial writing and post, instead of never letting the lists go over or under quota by not closing passed proposals if that would make them be over or under quota.

In addition, we can make a rule to only accept proposals from individuals if they have done something to improve the articles they are proposing to add or remove. In the case of swaps, both the one added and the one removed should be improved by the nominator in order for their proposal to be considered.

These rules would both stop superfluous proposals that are only bogging down the lists by taking them farther from their quotas while also encouraging and even mandating the articles be improved as well as the lists.

Feel free to copy/paste this on the Vitals pages or talk pages as a recommendation. I can't do it myself as I am banned from editing anything on Wikipedia except for my Talk page. I hope this finds you well.

Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Cobblet and @Thi,

Both of you have been involved with archiving discussions on the Vitals articles lately. (Cobblet undid an archive of a proposal, and I undid Thi's archiving of my proposal). I had this idea about them I felt I should share.

I was banned from Wikipedia for having WP:STRONGVIEWS. I've now been taught more about WP:CONSENSUS. In order for us to obtain an accurate, fair, and true consensus of the Vitals articles, I think we may have to ban manual archiving completely and only let auto archiving take place. This is so each proposal is treated equally. Without treating each proposal equally and letting each proposal sit all the way to its auto-archiving period, the list can become skewed towards to viewpoint of a single editor that utilizes manual archiving (especially if they are closing proposals they voted on).

This would require someone to keep track of going back to proposals that were automatically archived to actually close them as passed/failed/no consensus, however this task may be alleviated if we write something somewhere that assigns that task to the initial proposer. For example, "Do not manually close proposals. Let them sit to their auto-archiving period. This is so each proposal is treated equally, and the lists represent a true consensus. Once a proposal is automatically archived, it is up to the initial proposer to go in and properly close it as passed/failed/no consensus, and to adjust the lists accordingly (however a volunteer may also do this if they see a proposal was automatically archived and the initial proposer has not properly closed it yet)."

Let me know what you two think (or you Cacti). Thanks, LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Activity on these pages waxes and wanes over time. There are many times when they clog up with dozens of stale proposals (you yourself have been responsible for this recently) and manual archiving is necessary. I don't see a problem with the latest reverts: they did not spark edit-warring or controversy. What we need is not more rules, but more considerate, thoughtful, and patient contributors. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cobblet this editor doesn’t understand that banned means banned. I’m taking away their talk page access as editing by proxy is still editing. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Good block. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "History of divination".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "History of the wheel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "History of cooking".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of alchemy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emerald (color), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "History of alchemy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Emerald".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of mining, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of mysticism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The page Draft:History of mysticism has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/31698 and https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysticism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• is open. @Doug Weller, Courcelles, and Catfish Jim and the soapdish: For feedback and suggestions on how to proceed. And what advice to give to appellant. Thanks

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s a community ban, not something I could undo on my own even though I pressed the original block button. I say take it to AN, and reopen this talk page for the duration. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure it's ready yet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't impressed by the short period of editing at SImple Wikipedia last June that I viewed. I see no evidence of a block there either.. The use of a travel site for Indigo dye was disappointing. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I might not circle back till late Monday. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

CJ&S found the same problems at SIMPLE as led to the ANI thread, so I cannot see an unblock soon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was somewhat dismayed to see that LightProof's first edit there was this... , the same misinformation and lack of understanding that triggered the original ANI. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Closed ticket. Will see user back after six months and 500 edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Türkiye (bird) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 2 § Türkiye (bird) until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "History of mining".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)