User talk:Xiahou

!

Xiahou, for your excellant userpage, I award you the Excellant Userpage Award. **>Kamope<** Talk · Sign Here 13:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. If you like, you can add an image or quote to my quilt (it's on my userpage). >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a school IP

Listen, this is a school's ip address, i have no control over what goes on, and i apologize for whatever inconvience happens to you, but it isnt from me.--24.125.0.232 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you had control, but users of this IP and judging by their usage here almost every edit from this IP has been vandalism with a talk page full of warnings. So if you don't want to 'share the blame' the simple solution would be to register a username and avoid all the problems of sharing a heavily vandalized anon. IP. I understand it can be frustrating to see a page of the IP you are using to have warnings for things you never did, but as I suggested just get a username and it won't be an issue. --Xiahou 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Will (aka Wimt) 11:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I am sure sometime you will end up returning the favor the way things work around here. --Xiahou 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Fatu

The Eddie Fatu article fails to meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The tag being placed there is vandalism in itself. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I see that its being vandalised as fast as I can rv back to something--Xiahou 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for dealing with 71.125.24.180, assuming good faith and not losing your cool. Kntrabssi 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. He came across as a little lost vandal. Don't think he realized all the ways of seeing what people do on wiki. Hopefully he turns it around eventually and becomes a constructive memeber. --Xiahou 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia moderator pushing POV

Greetings Xiahou.

To be brief, the reason I posted that addition in the "transformers(2007)" entry is because - point blank - I am sick and tired of only showing one side in regards to this movie. The links to forums for Don Murphy and Mike Bay are heavily biased, and they tend to delete/ban anyone who do not think as they do. I added a link to a forum for those who don't buy the hype - Smegatron deleted it. So I removed the links to the biased forums - Smegatron restored them. That eaddition was an attempt to get him to act a little more responsibly & honestly, since It seems that he (Smegatron) is hell bent on pushing his beliefs instead of either presenting all the facts or removing Biased POVs.

I would request that you remove the links to those forums from that entry - leaving the movie website link & the IMDB link. Maybe if one of his fellow moderators takes a stand against the POV issue in that entry, he'll quit pushing(Hey, one can allways hope. ;)

Gynsu

I would discuss it on the talk page of the article its what its for [[1]]

As far as them putting in the offical producer and official directors site. Seems obvious not POV. If the content of those sites is your issue like I said take it up on the talk page. Otherwise having a director and producers offical site linked makes sense. Sorry.--Xiahou 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that editing

hey man, sorry about the mix ups with the editing. It was I who edited stoner, because when i went to the article, there was just one sentence saying something stupid like "Stoner- someone who gets fuckin' high on weed hell ya." it was something like that. i just changed it to say something like, A user of Marijuana, you know, just to clean it up, i assumed there wasn't an actual article of stoner at that point. however i just checked and there was. As for "candy" that was my stupid little sister, i told her not to edit whatever she did. so yea, i use wiki all the time, don't block my ip, so yea, sorry man. pibwiki 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just log in to make changes shouldn't be a problem. Your user name has a clean record. Don't know if the IP gets blocked will stop the username. It may I suppose if using same IP to login. Don't know the ages of you or your sister but you may just mention to your parents/guardians to keep her off it for this very reason. --Xiahou 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverts by you

Is it really neccessary to keep reverting my page? I get the message. Please stop.

Actually yes its completely necessary to leave up your current vandalism warnings so no WE won't stop. But you can stop being a vandal and be constructive. --Xiahou 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped. How bout enough.

enough what?, also please sign with the 4 ~ when you post on a page. --Xiahou 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not neccessary to copy the conversation to my talk page. So please stop. I'm leaving the other ones up.71.126.73.203 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats great but you were also warned about blanking pages and that to needs to stay so...--Xiahou 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm removing your personal comments. I'm leaving the warnings.

ok you got it now.--Xiahou 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:67.33.132.26: Biting the newbies is not acceptable.

While the IP did make a series of personal attacks, skipping straight to a level 3 template is the very definition of biting the newbies. Please be more careful next time and work your way upwards from lower level warnings. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea sure, [[2]] oh yea I was to harsh he was such a nice IP. He had 6 vandal edits in a row by the time I gave him his first and he kept going and going and going after that. Currently blocked for a week so, NO. If anything I gave him his much deserved first 'nip' let alone a bite. --Xiahou 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wooty's point was that the IP still isn't famillier with Wikipedia or it's policies, and thus should receive lower level warnings before a last one, except in unusal circumstances. The worst of what I saw in the history of contributions from this IP were profanity and page blanking.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so on a completely unrelated IP he would have a point but in using this one as an example he has no point...ok? This IP as you stated yourself had page blankings, obscene statements. Are we to wait till we recieve some kind of conformation that they have read the myriad of WP: This and That on everything wikipedia policies? You get a warning not to do something multiple times after the fact of the original 6 in question thats more than plenty chances. They were blocked for a week. Now a first timer usually gets less so this says the blocker to saw how much vandalism they did. I started on level 3 after 6 vandal edits in a row. They continued MANY times after this including well past final warning. Wiki has a warning template for vandals that says "Only warning" how is this any different? I am not going to be blamed for biting when i nipped someone who needed to be & eventually was blocked. --Xiahou 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Based on this message, I was conviced that WP:BITE and WP:AGF had to be followed strictly. I'm justing trying to follow the rules, but I'm confused, now.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take. Blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism. I agree with Xiahou. No coddling to such antisocial behavior. We don't have to be and shouldn't be nice to those who so blatantly violate Wikipedia standards. This stuff isn't an accident. It's intentional, in-your-face violations. But of course, that's just my opinion. Catbar 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(typed before Catbar's take) rather than just posting a link like its all emcompassing to what happend specifically show where either was violated. No reason to assume good faith after someone says "F-You" in their edit multiple times. Good faith is just that maybe someone oops'ed it happens. Sure but saying F-You over and over in a summary -- no, no faith there. Strictly? Look around. Plenty of times a vandal goes unwarned gets out of hand and gets one "Your only warning" template. I belive in giving the benfit of the doubt aka good faith, but also I believe in common sense and when a IP does what this one did and seeing that they later got a 1 week block for themselves. I don't need to further explain it, it spells itself out. --Xiahou 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BITE: "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is augmented, and you further our project.". I don't really care how malicious the vandal is. Telling them it's their "last warning" when you never gave them a previous warning is definitely not what we do here. This situation is exactly what {{bv}} is made for. Slapping on confusing warning templates out of process and out of order is confusing to blocking admins, feeding the troll/vandal, and destructive to good faith editors. End of story. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you missed it though read your own quote "Telling them it's their "last warning" Didn't do that. So for all their early vandalism you want me to give them a "gee I wonder if when you wrote F-You over and over in your summary you were just confused" Hey I got a plan worry about the actual vandals instead of those trying to plug the holes in the dam. Ive missed dozens of vandalism defending a pointless point that a vandal who ended up being worse then when I left him and got blocked for a week your worried that my jumping in after he had over and over. Feel free to look at the talk pages of some of the more vicious, obscene, horrid vandals and you won't see any "gee I hope Iam not biting you when you said "kill the jews" maybe you are just experimenting." no any malicious, hate inciting, vandalism doesn't and will never get "test" templates. Nor will F-this and F-that multiple times. Hey like I said wiki has and no one has objected to the "only warning" templates. Would it have chapped you had I used that. Technically its well within my means. But no I took actually a lower one. If "only warnings" are so wrong they would not be allowed as templates. So please let me get back to actually stopping vandalism and not worrying about a week long blocked vandal who did nothing for wiki but cause trouble and I called him on it. Oh the shame. --Xiahou 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I was the one who just asked to let this die but I had to put this quote from the template page "There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. Though some people vandalizing are incorrigible returning vandals and may be blocked quickly" But I had to put it since basically with this I think the issue can be put to rest now. --Xiahou 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!

Dude, I was making Fan-Fiction!! MMV4FF stood for Micro Machines V4 Fan Fiction!! GOD! Did you even read the page?{fsh}Nemo 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now? --Xiahou 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) Dude, I was making Fan-Fiction!! MMV4FF stood for Micro Machines V4 Fan Fiction!! GOD! Did you even read the page?{fsh}Nemo 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now? --Xiahou 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... so I didn't know! WTF! I'm 10 years old for a n00b's sake!{fsh}Nemo 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to bite the newbies, make personal attacks, and assume bad faith, Xiahou. This could be easily resolved by cutting out the personal attacks and giving the user an appropriate welcome template, which I have done. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooty go away. No really, please do. If I burned you on the above arugment with the whole "templates don't need to be given in order" quote. Now your going to lurk my every move. Good Lord why don't you take a pill of your own advice and assume good faith. Once again your about six degrees away from the point. Could I come on your page and go "Dude, OMG blah blah blah like why did you delete my page" It could also be resolved by the fact that I was typing in a welcome page and your edit butted in. So assume good faith Wooty your 2 steps behind in assuming I wasn't doing that. --Xiahou 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks? what? you do know that wiki keeps track of everything so Its not like I added it and took it out. So where is it? Ive got you claiming Iam biting people Ive got him putting WTF on my page and dude why did you delete my nonsense page. And me trying to make some sence of what he is trying to say. And I am the one "personal attacking." how broad a definition of that word to you use? --Xiahou 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lurking your "every move", I checked back and noticed you being uncivil for absolutely no reason. "yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no" is condescending and rude. "Your point is what now?" is also. You've attacked me, though, and so I'm definitely going to be watching this talk page to make sure you don't do so to anyone else. I'll assume good faith when you decide to follow policies pointed out to you twice by now. If you wanted to complain about deletion of pages, go ahead. I'll point you to the policies. If my "edit butted in", I would have ran into an edit conflict. Please start being civil to me and especially other users (even vandals) or I'll be forced to report you to AI or PAIN. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? this is text right? so I look above and see nothing saying anything directed at you as an attack. I am trying to see it assuming the worst adding tone and inflection where it isn't intended and I still don't see it. I really don't get you at all? uncivil? you can read tone in text? Thats amazing, I just can't seem to be able to do it. If you read it I was confused by what his point was? Try it with the assumption of *gasp* good faith of the editor confused by what the person is asking. I could barely read it with the OMGs and all that. And again you are really not reading what I am typing. 'I' ran into the edit conflict. Why would you? yours came in first as in we were typing at same time and you sumbitted first it happens all the time with rv's and undos. You policies that you pointed out were shot down on the template page so again I ask what you are trying to get at. I am out here trying to clean up vandalism and you are worried about vandals and trolls getting their feelings hurt by getting a deserved warning. Feel free to quote me where I was being 'uncivil' and not being a wiki acronymn poster and actually point out exactly where the problem lies. I know its taboo to say 'forum cop' but to use it as an analogy I am trying to clean things up and you are worried the caught confessed red handed fugtive has had a snack and warm pillow. Like I said rather than waste time here claming (though you've yet to point out where) that I am giving off certain 'tones' of being rude by me saying I am confused by what someone was getting at? (how you can twist me not understanding to being rude by somehow adding emotional tone to a text statement is beyond me) You could also be out there doing something about the vandalism rather than complain about the way others don't do it you what you cite as policy yet as I again point out to you right there on the template page it says they do NOT have to be given in order the original thing that brought you here has been laid to rest. So once again I ask to let this die. Please stop general posting of a policy link without actually taking the time to show what was wrong. Please stop ingoring the fact that original argument is done and over and with my quoting of the template page you argument is delfated. Please join us, help out against vandalism which is ruining the very fabric and reputation of wiki rather than worry about obscene, vulgar, racial, vandals getting what you deem appropriate warnings. Please stop reading 'tone' and feelings into text where there is none, or if there is the wrong one. You assumed I was being rude and condensending and I was being confused. As in "yea uh huh and is wiki the place for that...no. So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now" so I typed "yea uh huh" as in I don't get what you are saying. Then "is wiki the place for that...no" as in asking if wiki is the place for fan fiction. I answered no. So far where is the rude part? First I was confused by what he was asking then I asked nicely is this the place for that. Rude would be "are you crazy wiki isn't for fan fiction, grow up" I didn't do this. I was civil. So again we have you inserting your own interpritation of the tone I intended. And if anyone is to know the tone intended, its me. And the tone and emotion I intended was fist of confusion then of asking and answering a question of why. Then I say "So it was tagged for Speedy Delete and the powers that be agreed with me and so it was deleted. Your point is what now" So the first part I tell him it was tagged and then someone with the power to delete, deleted it. Not me. Again I directly answered the question what I thought he asked. Rude would have been, "pointless fan fiction page, you should know better" I didn't do this so where is the uncivil part? "You point is what now?" as in I don't know in the end of it all what he's asking me. Is he asking why did I delete it (I didn't as explained) is he asking me why I didn't like it (Didn't like or dislike it wasn't a wiki page) So I asked in plain english "what is your point now" as in "I hope I answered what you wanted becasue I don't know where to take it from here, if there was another answer you were after". Again, unless you assume something else was 'hidden' in the text I stil don't see this so called uncivil etc etc you say is there. Again if its there I don't see it, nor did I try to hide it. Its text. So really again, try not to look for the bad, assume the worst, put in emotion, tone whatever into what someone types maybe just maybe they know what they meant and put better than you. Because if anyone is going to know the intent of the writer, its the writer. The reader interprets, and they can and were here, wrong.

In conclusion, feel free to let this die, go away, do whatever it is long drawn out pointless debates do and lets get back to actually doing something constructive for wiki. --Xiahou 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the personal attack page and no, its not there.

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Threats of legal action Threats of violence, particularly death threats. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why. Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Nope, none of those apply to whats been said. "Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding" which seems to be quite the case here. "continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. " Key point here "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks"

So please stop saying by assuming emotion, tone, of my text. I was civil, quite level headed and stress free when posting. I broke it down sentence by sentence what was written and what was meant. I honestly don't know why this keeps going. I am a wiki RC patroler. I take pride in it. I enjoy it. In the time you first posted here you've done a few things mostly complain on here. In that time. I stopped dozens of vandals. Some getting test warnings some getting higher depending on the type of vandalism. I am being as constuctive as I can. So please no more saying any time you don't seem to like the tone you assume I am making its a personal attack. Ive read the page, again. Ive quoted parts here, there is nothing thats been said that can be twisted, assumed, or changed to be a personal attack on you or any other editor involved. I ask you to just let this die. It looks good for both of us if you do. No need for apology, reply, rebuttal. It comes down to this. Issue 1 - originally you didn't like that I gave a vandal a level 3. You quoted some policy, later I did that said you don't need to put it in order especially for vandals like the one in question. That should have ended that. Issue 2 - apparenty child by admitted age makes a non wiki page. I speedy delete tag it. Later its deleted by someone else. Said child complains to me. I am confused and reply (see above). You come back saying I handled it wrong and should add a welcome page (which I was typing with extra and got an edit conflict with yours) But then claims of uncivil etc popped up. I showed there was none. Then claims of personal attack. As seen above by quoting the personal attack page and reviewing the text above. There was none. So let it go. --Xiahou 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Black Falcon#Ethnic group

No problem. When I'm doing RC patrol (not very often), I usually check back in the edit history for 2 or 3 edits (unless, of course, I recognise the editor). It makes me a little slower in checking recent changes but, then again, slower equates to less hectic. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why not?

what's wrong with it?70.126.190.77 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its rude, denotes a personal attack calling someone retarded. Along with the use of F---. in a warning which is completely unnecessary. Here is a helpful link on warning templates [[3]] --Xiahou 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe.

I believe you told user: Sratneshwaran that his removal web-links anc changes to Swadhyay Parivar was wrong and you reverted them. There is no reversal. Could you pl. do so? swadhyayee 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]