User talk:XerxesFalcon

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the ANI discussion that you were notified about above. You've been editing since the notification. If you request an unblock you will have to convince an Administrator that you understand the issues and have a plan to correct the problems. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE HELL? I didn't do nothing wrong. I am SO here to build an encyclopedia. How is this not the case?!? I am a good contributor to Wikipedia, and am no vandal. I have been treated unfairly, because Wikipedia admins are nothing more than control freaks.

I contribute to Wikipedia for the following reasons;

Whenever I create an article I add stubs so other people can expand it.
I add reliable sources.
I have not disrespected Wikipedia in any way.

My behaviour is typical to that of any other Wikipedia user. There is nothing abnormal about it. The only reason I haven't engaged in discussions is because I have been busy with college and other commitments.

XF, it's a shame you didn't engage at the ANI, but what you have written above confirms why you have been blocked. Your behaviour is not the same as everyone else's: you have repeatedly refused to engage in discussions or change your editing when issues were raised. You also do not always add reliable sources, there are numerous messages on your talk page warning you not to create unreferenced articles, which you have ignored, and you have also refused to WP:INLINECITE (which is a requirement for blps) and used imdb as an only source. Your editing has created a huge amount of work for others and a lot of frustration. Referenced stubs are absolutely fine; refusing to reference, or adding unreliable sources, or sources which are not inline is not fine, and neither is refusing to discuss issues until it has got to the point of a block. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I include Inline Citations, and have done that on many pages.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XerxesFalcon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My behaviour was deemed unacceptable by Wikipedia administrators when that is clearly not true. I have been contributing to Wikipedia in an acceptable manner, when the admins are complaining over minor indiscretions such as not including inline citations or reliable sources and blocked me for it.

Wikipedia admins are nothing more than control freaks. They should see the error of their ways. This is why Doug Weller's blocking of me was unjustified.

Decline reason:

Please discuss only your behaviour, not that of others. If you believe Wikipedia admins are control freaks, which may be accurate, that's fine; you are welcome to discuss the issue once unblocked. But it won't help your unblock request. Now, you've been accused of failing to respond to messages and often failing to cite information, particularly on biographies of living people. This looks accurate to me. If you disagree, it should be fairly easy to prove. For example, show that I missed a citation on Draft:Standish J. Lambert or that your other biographies are generally well-sourced (remember, imdb doesn't count; see WP:RS). As to the commenting, it should be fairly easy to show you almost always respond to messages. I can't find evidence of this, but you are very welcome to provide some. Yamla (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why I should be unblocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XerxesFalcon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My behaviour on Wikipedia was deemed unacceptable by admins, when that is clearly not true. Whilst they have accused me of improper use of the site, I already understand the issues, but I didn't do anything wrong - most recently, I started using inline citation and reliable sources on pages, and the Wikipedia admins still blocked me, which I think is unfair. I promise to mend my ways, as long as the admins also mend their ways.

Decline reason:

I just went and looked at your contributions, your edit summaries (or mostly lack thereof), your use of article talk pages (nonexistant), and your use of this talk page (none whatsoever until you were blocked, despite more than a year of warnings about your approach to editing). You don't get to negotiate here ("as long as the admins mend their ways"); people have been remarkably patient with you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

IT'S OFFICIAL. WIKIPEDIA HATES ME.

You didn't take part in the discussion which involved Admins and editors. You've never posted on your talk page before today, and it isn't clear that you've ever posted to any talk page despite being asked to. It's interesting that you link to one of the wackiest websites I've ever seen about Wikipedia, interesting because I read it just a few hours ago before you posted it here. It shows complete ignorance about how Wikipedia works (which differs between projects, by the way). The claims "Administrators use heinous “automatic users” called bots to accomplish the task of stalking down users (although the admins are barely human, they can’t possibly watch over millions of Wikipedia users). These bots are the administrators’ assistants, and thousands of them are crawling all over Wikipedia, and at the slightest bit of a mishap, they’ll leave a horrific message on your talk page and notify all the admins." is just nuts. I only wish I had one of those. I note that posters there are advocating and commit deliberate vandalism. If you really think that's how Wikipedia works after all your edits than that lone is a concern. And your statement that you will only change your editing pattern if Admins do isn't helping you at all. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the majority of us who posted on your talk page and in the ANI about you aren't even admins, we're just regular users & editors who've tried (me personally on multiple occasions!) to work with you to address the problems you create only to be ignored. We don't hate you, we're just frustrated with the extra work you create for those of us who work on NPP and cleanup. We're certainly not admins or robots tho. JamesG5 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, either, just someone who has repeatedly tried to help you. Your comments about sourcing are untrue, you created unreferenced biographies of living people as recently as two days ago. Try to show some insight. If you want to be unblocked, why don't you start by bothering to read carefully all the messages people have sent you on this page, and actually look at how the articles were when the messages were sent - you didn't respond to the messages by a message of your own or addressing the issue, even when the issue - no references - got pages you created deleted. You can try to be rational and stop blaming everyone else. Personally, with the attitude you've displayed in your unblock requests and your clear inability to be accurate, I would suggest you do not return to editing Wikipedia, you just don't get what we're doing here. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't intend to upset anyone.

I just spend most of the time editing or creating pages just like everyone else. But now I feel worse off after what has happened.

What can I do to get my block lifted? How to get my editing privileges back?

Essentially, you will have to convince an administrator that you understand the problem(s) that resulted in your block and how you expect to avoid those problems going forward. Based on your lack of participation on article talk pages, and having never edited this page until you were blocked, I will advise you to choose your words and organize your thoughts carefully. Tiderolls 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What User:Tide rolls says. Yelling at people rarely helps. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

XerxesFalcon, I know you're blocked and I don't want to seem to be stomping all over you. But I think we're all hoping you will be able to get unblocked and resume writing articles, this time with references. I've just spent some time referencing a few of your articles, and it was apparent that Helgi Skúlason was translated from the article on Swedish Wikipedia—you misunderstood the point about the "in Sweden" bit in the text. The thing is, you didn't mention anywhere that it was a translation. When you translate an article from another version of Wikipedia, you must give full attribution to the editors who worked on that article. Preferably, that's done by including in your first edit summary, "translated from [[:sv:Helgi Skúlason]]" or the equivalent, or just "translated from Swedish Wikipedia". But we also greatly prefer on English Wikipedia that the article's talk page also has a template linking to the original. So, after you create the article, create the talk page with the template, mentioning the word "attribution" in your edit summary. {{Translated article|sv|Helgi Skúlason}} is the syntax for the template for this article: you put in the prefix for the relevant language Wikipedia and the title over there. Please remember these when you get unblocked, if you do any more article translating; under the license, attribution is required for any copying within Wikipedia. (It also helps others check the accuracy of the translation!) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question...

When will my block be lifted? Because it sucks to not be able to edit.

Your block is indefinite. It will be lifted once you convince us that you understand the problems with your behaviour so far. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. Tiderolls 15:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But of course I Understand. User:XerxesFalcon 16:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When will I be unblocked?

Now I understand why I was blocked, and I'll be better behaved so I'd like to know when I'll be unblocked. User:XerxesFalcon 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is indefinite and will not be lifted until you make an unblock request which sufficiently convinces an admin that you understand the problems with your behaviour so far, and that those problems won't recur. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

XerxesFalcon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I learned my lesson, and feel I've been blocked for long enough, I am ready to edit again and I should be unblocked. I even sent an unblock request.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Because I learned my lesson, and feel I've been blocked for long enough, I am ready to edit again and I should be unblocked. I even sent an unblock request. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because I learned my lesson, and feel I've been blocked for long enough, I am ready to edit again and I should be unblocked. I even sent an unblock request. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because I learned my lesson, and feel I've been blocked for long enough, I am ready to edit again and I should be unblocked. I even sent an unblock request. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note to reviewing admin: this user created User:XerxesFalcon2 right after this unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I've seen nothing from XerxesFalcon's long editing or their response to the block which convinces me of a proper understanding of the issues. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

XerxesFalcon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I feel that I learned my lesson, and am sorry for any inconvenience, so I feel I've been blocked for long enough. I am a good Wikipedian and don't intend to cause any inconvenience or to misuse the site, so blocking me in the first place was a complete oversight. Furthermore, I don't intend to be problematic and many of those edits were made in good faith, so the whole problem wrongly suggests that I misuse Wikipedia. I even sent an unblock request.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Because I feel that I learned my lesson, and am sorry for any inconvenience, so I feel I've been blocked for long enough.  I am a good Wikipedian and don't intend to cause any inconvenience or to misuse the site, so blocking me in the first place was a complete oversight. Furthermore, I don't intend to be problematic and many of those edits were made in good faith, so the whole problem wrongly suggests that I misuse Wikipedia. I even sent an unblock request. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because I feel that I learned my lesson, and am sorry for any inconvenience, so I feel I've been blocked for long enough.  I am a good Wikipedian and don't intend to cause any inconvenience or to misuse the site, so blocking me in the first place was a complete oversight. Furthermore, I don't intend to be problematic and many of those edits were made in good faith, so the whole problem wrongly suggests that I misuse Wikipedia. I even sent an unblock request. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because I feel that I learned my lesson, and am sorry for any inconvenience, so I feel I've been blocked for long enough.  I am a good Wikipedian and don't intend to cause any inconvenience or to misuse the site, so blocking me in the first place was a complete oversight. Furthermore, I don't intend to be problematic and many of those edits were made in good faith, so the whole problem wrongly suggests that I misuse Wikipedia. I even sent an unblock request. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Even though I clearly don't intend to be problematic, I feel like this whole thing was blown out of proportion. User:XerxesFalcon 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock template

Pick one or the other. One unblock at a time. Tiderolls 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]