User talk:Deathnotekll2

What's up, from Deathnotekll

"Even if there is a God and I had his teachings right before me, I would think it through and decide if that was right or wrong myself." (Light, from Death Note)

Avoid sending me warning labels with Wikipedia's policies glued on it. I'll delete them with your message. If you have something to say, say it normally by opening a topic or adding a comment.

Also, don't threaten or intimidate me; it won't work.

About

I don't enjoy discussing religion or follow any specific denomination, but it seems some non-notable figures that have been put to the test of Wikipedia's Notoriety are fighting back to retaliate through their many likely proxies. That's expected of any ardent follower and honestly, predictable.

I'll enforce policy where it's most needed; and the topic of articles belonging to religious leaders is begging for enforcement, thanks to my recent experience. My AfD votes and nominations tend to be very strict. This relates to a recent AfD.

I enjoy music, literature, dance, culture, pop culture, architecture and greek philosophy. This is my main editorial focus on Wikipedia.

Talk Page

Post talk page messages below.

Welcome!

Hi Deathnotekll2! 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, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Woodroar (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy clarification on sources and AfD

Hello, Deathnotekll2,

I need to look into this further but I wanted to say now that administrators primarily handle problems with editor conduct, delete vandalism, etc., we are not the "final word" on content issues. Closing an AFD means that I assessed the participants' arguments, not that I'm an expert on any particular subject matter that is in the article under debate. While I'm unclear on the basis of your disagreement with Joshua Jonathan, I do know him as a very experienced editor in this subject area. While no editor is right 100% of the time, I would take his advice seriously since you are very new to the project and its complicated rules and guidelines. But I'll look in this dispute and get back to you if I can find any way I can help resolve this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Liz. What I find most interesting is this debate poses a relevant question on the validity of authoritative sources that are discussed in an AfD - and in this case, dismissed for lack of substance: should they remain on other articles? Perhaps we can use this case to create an editorial precedent on Wikipedia, if one does not exist already. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Removed harassing user's Joshua Jonathan religious propaganda and endless arguing from my talk page (WP:HA).

He may be reported to WP:AN with an additional protection request placed on WP:RPP if he continues to deliberately disturb the discussion and continually harass me.

I am very sorry, User:Liz, but this is getting strange. I had planned to keep his comments intact but this is no longer possible. Things are becoming more and more exciting with this "Vimalaramsi" case. First the AfD investigated the links and sources which were analyzed by me as deceitful and by the AfD as insufficient, now their supporters on Wikipedia attempt to shield the image of the organization backing the article, its leader and an user who fervently supports them. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Welcome to Wikipedia and the concept of 'page stalkers'.

When you edit, your edits are visible to everyone. Which means that a lot of people will read them, even on the more obscure pages. These will mostly be people you haven't interacted with - that's just inevitable. There are more people you haven't interacted with than those you have. Most of us will have seen you edit a page that's on our watchlists, probably from some random unrelated edit years ago - but today we see your edit.

Then you get the Irresistible Wikipedia Urge To Judgement. If someone sees an edit and they agree with it, they say nothing. If they disagree with it, they say something on the article talk page. If they're outraged by it (or outraged by you), then they post on your talk: page. There is no shortage of outrage on Wikipedia (it's what powers the servers - Jimbo sells the excess power to heat the whole of San Fran). So just don't be surprised if random strangers on Wikipedia pop up on your private [sic] talk: page to tell you what an awful editor / person / total waste of biochemistry you are. It's also possible (sometimes) that they're right, or might at the very least have a bit of a point.

Chill.

Especially if you're a new editor. Chill.

Many practices and editing policies here are weird. Any new editor is going to fall foul of lots of them. Other, good, editors will be tolerant of this, or may offer advice (at least you've found Liz, who is very good at this). But there are also plenty of other editors here who just welcome any chance to tell someone else that they're Doing It Wrong, especially when they have the power of some obscure policy to back them up. Even when you've just made some huge edit (at great effort) to make some massive article comply with your school's rule on citation format (not quite the same as the Wikipedia way), or even you've done something the way that the French Wikipedia is equally insistent is the only permissible way to do it. Let alone that you're caught eating an egg from the wrong end.

I can only suggest doing a lot of observation of things, and (at first) less action. Also, talk to people. Especially those who offer help. Most issues here are defused easily early on, if people would just discuss things near the start.

Good luck Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more they send these messages, the more excited I am to take this case forward. This is very interesting indeed. A desperate, concerted effort to protect an user from the mere possibility of being reported, or investigated or whatever they're trying to hide. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T do that! DON'T go there!

That's exactly where I feel like going now. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the threats. Either go to AN or don't. Rambling threats to file a report at AN are just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does he feel so threatened, then?

Better yet, why are you feeling threatened for him?

I have not opened any process yet. I figured a warning to stop him from spamming my talk page with infuriating fanatical propaganda from his religion, after accusing me of being a single purpose account without any evidence, would be just enough.

For now, at least. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in In Extremo, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please don't italicize group names. Meters (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So italicization of group names isn't ok?

Hm. That's strange. Can you quote which wikipedia policy has that passage? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where you'd expect: MOS:ITALIC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Meters, not you. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read Andy's comments above. I'm guessing you didn't want to hear the answer. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (again) to Wikipedia.

You did not 'ask Meters' (you might have thought you did). This isn't a phone call, it's not a one-to-one medium. You put a question up into visible space and anyone is likely to give you an answer (of varying levels of relevance and usefulness). Anyone.

You should, BTW, read MOS:ITALIC. It's typical of WP that policies are excellent, if only people understood them. Where it goes wrong is when people reference them to mean the complete opposite of what they mean, or they misunderstand what they say and mis-apply them. Or that old favourite, just bludgeoning people randomly with whatever blunt instrument is nearest to hand. Just hope you don't get a 'contentious topic' warning about Palestine, because those mark you out as someone who needs to be indef blocked as soon as they make another edit, no questions asked!

MOS:ITALIC separates the content here into 'works' and 'artists'. We italicise the works, but not the artists. Mostly it works pretty well. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]