User talk:PraiseTheShroom

Reading Recommendation

Someone with your obvious merits should read A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole! I feel like you would empathize very strongly with the main character & hero, Ignatius J. Reilly, who is of course famously beset on all sides by fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.87.100 (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend, I will procure a copy! It truly sounds like a riveting (and quite relatable, given recent events)read. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there are many like him, as I gather from a bit about the tale: very brilliant, yet only in their own minds. Sadly when enough of such men can get together, others begin to believe them...

I wish that everyone could see the clearer truth that men differ little in intelligence, merely in circumstance. Yet there will always be those who see themselves as above all others, and such as these crave the company of those in a like mindset above all else. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from Authority page

Hi there - I see you were active on the argument from authority page awhile back. It looks like there's some disagreement on the matter now, maybe having an extra voice like your's in on the discussion would help? FL or Atlanta (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would with jubilation further provide my insight into this enigma of a philosophical matter for my colleagues. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A notice

This edit:here was a bit messed up. I don't mean philosophically (I'll address that there) I mean you made 2 mistakes: 1) you accidently removed my signature from my post (and pushed it further along) 2) you did not ping the user you were responding to (me). If you don't know how to ping I will gladly teach you. Endercase (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies! Marring your message was the further thing from my intentions. I have done little editing and have yet to acquire some of the finer apititudes. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continued disruption and harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you are blocked, I strongly recommend you have a good read of WP:Consensus and WP:IDHT, and try to absorb them properly. If you continue with your adversarial approach once this block expires, refusing to accept a clear consensus when it is against you, your next block is likely to be considerably longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing, is it not, how clear a "consensus" becomes when all who disagree with it are reprimanded and all sources which speak against it banished? PraiseTheShroom (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose topic ban. If you want to add anything to that discussion while you are blocked, please post it below here and I (or someone else) will copy it over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Others take the words of others uncritically (as seen with the YouTube allegations) and use that selfsame slander as proof of guilt. Anyone who would read through the long and detailed discussions now and in the past in the page's Talk could not miss the many and clear sources which give a dissenting opinion, stating that these arguments are fallacies.

Yet just as with the clearly disruptive attempts at shutting down the discussion I initiated at the reliable sources noticeboard being fully tolerated and not once questioned, I see that there is no true investigation of facts being done: the one who speaks loudest is simply taken as an oracle of truth.

Yet there is still a chance for redemption. Truly investigate the matter: read what I have said and done, and see what little resemblance it bears to the creature they parade as my thoughts. See my sincere attempt to determine if scientific sources were permissable, and see it then insultingly derailed.

I hold out hope that these shall be ernestly looked into, yet hold much doubt that it shall be done. Finding facts is a hard path that leads only to still harder work in a mine, digging and brushing and polishing until at last a jewel is presentable. Far easier to simply heed the voice of whichever crier is nearest.

So we shall see: are there any who will consider what I have said and conduct an inquiry? Or will you all simply take an accuser at their word?

I would appreciate that added to their discussion, my good sir Boing! said Zebedee. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block expired yesterday, so you can add that yourself now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per this WP:ANI discussion, you have been indefinitely banned from editing any page related to Argument from authority and from any discussion of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed, with an appeal at WP:AN allowed no sooner than six months from today. Please read WP:TBAN to see how a topic ban works. You are welcome to ask me at my page if any questions remain after that, or if you're doubtful whether or not you're allowed to make a particular edit. If you violate the ban, you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]