User talk:Faster than Thunder

Hi Faster than Thunder. If the thunder don't get ya the lightning will. I'm sure someone opera tes under such a handle. I digress, the Manny the hippy/Manny thehippie/Micah Papp article edit you did was expected. However I don't know how to cite information to a website that shows Micah Papp no longer lives in SF. He has moved to salome, Az in 2021 and still raises there. Our community had become aware that he has habitually preyed upon numerous women, to abuse and manipulate them. Also he temporarily had a restraining order against me until it was dismissed for failure to provide tangible evidence to support his allegations and I did present documentation and verifiable records that proved my innocence to the court. Also I filed a police report for his sexual assault on me on the morning of July 8, 2024. So there is now an official record of his malicious lifestyle. How do I reference or provide documentation to support these updates. Where can I upload the documents or how do I make this information verifiable? Our community finds it of extreme importance that Micah Papp no longer be hidden or protected by outdated narratives such as what is stated in his present article, which may misled innocent women to believe he is trustworthy. All the best, Cm8805

Restoring sock edits

If you're going to restore an edit removed per WP:BANREVERT or WP:BMB, you need to take responsibility for the accuracy and validity of the edit as if you had made it yourself. If you will be restoring this wholesale then you need to check every iota of info added to ensure that the content is fully supported by the sources and that there are no copyright/close paraphrasing issues as these are the issues that led to this sockmaster being blocked in the first place.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for judging that book by its cover. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

clarification about a warning

@Faster than Thunder you left this[1] warning, but looking at the diffs it refers to[2][3] i'm not seeing the vandalism, am i missing something? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs to be sourced, and original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. As you can see, them adding the end date was not supported by a source. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that is not vandalism, vandalism has a very specific meaning which you can read at WP:VANDALISM. to pull a couple of quotes from there "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

i would ask you strike that warning as it is inaccurate.

"As you can see, them adding the end date was not supported by a source." i know, i'm the one who already removed that section for being unsupported.[4] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His name is "Arch Clements", not "Arch Clement". Do your own (in-depth) research and you will find that to be true. Bill Clements (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Shink77

Did you intend to report that user and also say that their edits were in good faith?

If so, please feel free to ignore this message! MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Don’t nominate someone for RFA before they accept. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me I'd make a good admin. @Faster than Thunder, I noticed on your user page you have a formula to determine if someone is ready for admin. Did you use that by any chance? Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 17:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically, you are 79% ready for adminship. I used the formula. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reaching out to random editors asking to nominate them for RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Faster than Thunder you are not even assessing the type of content a user produces. I have 1 article. That's it, no good articles, not even an ITN to my name. I revert vandalism and address content issues. My edit count is high because of this. A high edit count doesn't equate to gaining the bit. Knitsey (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The way you do it, you don't even need to look at the type or quality of edits the person makes. I could be a massive vandal with 4,000 vandalistic edits and you'd still think I was ready for admin based on that logic. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings etc.

Hello, I received the following message from 'Faster than Thunder': "Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing". All but two edits were 'reverted' for no explained reason. OK, I've stopped, but the edits I made were neither unsourced nor poorly sourced - all were sourced from credits (or lack thereof) on record labels, CD booklets and sleeve notes, & were explained as such when I made them. What happened to the idea of 'assuming good faith' in new members? (In this case good faith isn't necessary - I can substantiate all the edits). I understand from their user page that 'Faster than Thunder' is "currently experiencing significant real world stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikimedia" & that "This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know". I sympathise, and empathise, but you made a mistake. Let's not exacerbate real world stress by creating unnecessary online world stress. Toepath (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain

Why you warned Xavibueno when they didn't do any edits after the first warning by cluebot? They didn't trip an edit filter either. You shouldn't warn editors after they have already been warned by another user, but not carried out vandalism after the latest warning. Knitsey (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I thought a level three warning was appropriate, but didn't delete the robot warning because you are not allowed to delete other's legitimate talk page comments. What should I do if I feel a robot warning is at an inappropriate level? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it. Watch for edit filter triggers and edits. Unless it's something like littering a page with racism, transphobia, threats etc. Something that needs rev/del. If you're not sure, ask an admin if it needs further reporting. Knitsey (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generative LLM website

Hello, I'm MtBotany, I noticed you used botanicalrealm.com as a source for an edit to Gymnospora. It is an unreliable source due to being generated by a Large Language Model so I have reverted the edit. If you have any questions WP:PING me here or ask on my talk page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I added relevant information to Wikipedia:Large language models. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Draft:Rufus Steele. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Miller

All new facts have been supplemented with citations (e.g. the number and names of Alice Miller's children, more details from Alice's life before, during and after WWII (cited from Martin's biography of his mother), additional details and clarification into Alice's written theories to give a more factual account of her positions relative to psychoanalysis (references to her specific books where she broaches certain topics, like fairytales or leaving infants in cribs to cry), and her son's biography and role in the 2020 Swiss documentary made about Alice Miller.) Please identify where citations are additionally needed so I can continue to bolster her page with relevant and accurate sources. Finishedberserk (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources include:

User-editable websites
- Wikis
  - Any Wikimedia projects
Sources directly controllable by the article subject
- Sources by the article subject, like in this case, www.alice-miller.com
- References implying that they were created by the article subject, like in this case, starting with "Miller, Alice (1990)."
References without links to any of the above

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 23:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not source from any unreliable sources. I didn't source from any user-editable websites, wikis, or any wikimedia projects. The alice-miller website is an archive of the letters and articles Alice wrote while she was alive; she is now dead and has been dead for more than a decade, so the source is not directly controllable by the article subject.

The 1990 reference is to her books, and is specifically referenced to describe the theories/ideas that Alice *wrote about in her books*. Finishedberserk (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rapidly making many consecutive edits, common patterns for vandals, to a single page can make your edits hard to distinguish from vandalism. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 23:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

You accused me of vandalism and threatened to block me for adding good faith material. I assume the reason was lack of citations, but literally none of the other content has citations. Go ahead and remove that entire page then. If you want to throw citations up there, go right ahead. Going right to the ban hammer for not even vandalizing the webpage is absurd. 97.190.161.252 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:97.190.161.252. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia.

This edit that provoked your bogus level 3 vandalism warning was totally benign.

You've been cautioned about inappropriate use of warning templates multiple times in the last 2 months:

2 May 2025^[5][6]
9 May 2025^[7]
10 May 2025^[8]

Our fellow editors are not here to be whacked like moles.

What you're potentially doing is driving people away from editing Wikipedia.

Your user page mentions you're under a lot of stress -- believe me, I understand what that can be like. I encourage you to step away from vandalism hunt and focus on building content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better thing is that if an edit is hard to distinguish from vandalism but looks constructive, don't act on it. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Faster than Thunder: Please don't attempt to make move requests from the "style guideline" you created on your own userpage, as you've done here: Talk:Noel (rapper). Your style guidelines contradict the overall community guidelines at WP:TITLES and WP:MOS. You'd be better off proposing changes to those guidelines than trying to push your own guideline on others. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]