User talk:ThomisticCreature

Welcome!

Hi ThomisticCreature! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! EEpic (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Hello, I'm Whyiseverythingalreadyused. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Novena have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me which part of those citations were invalid? Care to Elaborate otherwise you're getting reported for vandalising ThomisticCreature (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Turns to TC

You violated WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV on the page about the prohibition officers

If you get blocked for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, I highly doubt that you will successfully appeal it Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

oh so you assumed I violated things because of good faith edits? Otherwise I will launch a vandalisation report on you for reversing actual valid citations under assumptions alone ThomisticCreature (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:NOTHERE

Also, this has been your fourth time threatening to report other people for vandalism; I don't see that you've made any reports

I'm gonna bet you're bluffing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

ok reporting.. ThomisticCreature (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Nah I'm not seeing it Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

oh you will ThomisticCreature (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

JBW: sorry; I think TC does need to be blocked indefinitely

What led you to assume extreme, untenable good faith of them? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry I don't speak English ThomisticCreature (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Some advice and information relating to your editing

Very often a new editor, who doesn't yet have enough experience of editing Wikipedia to know what is considered suitable, makes unsuitable edits, honestly intending to make useful contributions. Nobody can reasonably be blamed for that; I did it myself in my early days on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, it is very common for established editors who see such unsuitable editing from a new editor to just post a generic, prefabricated, warning message, instead of taking the trouble to try to help that new editor by explaining what the problems are. 😕 That is what Whyiseverythingalreadyused, PhilKnight, & MakaylaHippo1998 have done. I have checked your editing history, and here are some comments which I hope may help to clarify things for you.

If an article is about a subject the name of which is not English, it often makes sense to give the name in its native language, as well as English. Thus, for example, the article Confucius gives the Chinese name. In a few cases there's more than one non-English language name that's relevant. However, it is not helpful to include a list of names in languages which have no particular relevance; for example, there's no reason to list what Confucius is called in Russian, because Russian has no spevial relevance to Confucius. Including a long list of such irrelevant names just clutters up the opening of the article, and makes it less easy to read.
On or two of your edits have had problems which look as though they may not have been well-intentioned. For example, adding "the great" to the name of a principal of Yishun Innova Junior College does look rather like vandalism. If it wasn't, then just bear in mind that adding personal opinions or commentary to an article is not suitable. Likewise saying that Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith "were arguably the best detectives to have ever lived" is an expression of opinion, which should not be included in any Wikipedia article.

I hope you will have a successful time contributing to Wikipedia. Please let me know if there's anything else you think I may be able to help you with. JBW (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry; don't I have the right to ignore WP:AGF when presented at first sight with this?

"This" being:

The behavioural problems you mentioned
- repeated, reverted additions of Singapore-irrelevant languages to Singaporean locations
- promotion of a school principal
calling reversion vandalism (, , ; the last one is on this literal user talk page)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles