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

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'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:

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 reason:

"I've been blocked long enough" is far from accurate if you continue to display the same WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude that led to your block in the first place. Asserting that the original block was an "oversight" is a non-starter. I will be very very clear because you don't seem to be absorbing the seriousness of the concerns raised that led to this block; in order to be unblocked you will need to demonstrate that you understand, specifically, what led to your block and lay out a detailed plan as to how you will avoid the same issues moving forward. You will need to do so via UTRS, however, as I'm revoking your talk page access. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 23 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.

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]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

We're two weeks post block and we're going around in circles as you cannot seem to grasp why you continue to be blocked despite plenty of good faith and clear explanations from other editors on this page. In order avoid a net time sink, please direct further requests to WP:UTRS. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 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]

Abuse of multiple accounts

If you don't stop creating new accounts (e.g. User:XerxesFalcon BLOCK APPEAL) your chances of an unblock will drop to pretty much zero. Appeals need to be made via WP:UTRS and a reviewing admin there may restore talk page access here if you are able to compose a genuine GAB-compliant request demonstrating an understanding of your block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was bad, Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia admins

I'm here to explain why my block is no longer necessary, that I understand why I was blocked from editing, and I promise to make productive contributions once unblocked. I also promise to never again be disruptive on the site, because now I feel that I abused my privileges to the point where I was blocked and had those privileges taken away.

I am sorry if my actions were disruptive and have caused you and other Wikipedians any inconvenience, because I never intended for any of my edits to be disruptive. I have also explained that I was autistic and that situations where I was punished stressed me out a lot.

And also, I sincerely apologise if my unblock requests were in any way invalid or offensive, because I feel that I abused the talk page to the point where my access of it was revoked. I am also very sorry for creating multiple accounts which has greatly reduced my chances of being unblocked. That was selfish of me to do so. :(

I have read the guide to appealing blocks and I can safely say that I feel that my block is no longer necessary because I am sure that I can make productive contributions to the site, and not be disruptive or misuse the site again in the future.

All I am saying is, can you trust me to be a good Wikipedian again? :)

XerxesFalcon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.89.51 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that from an IP address where you've been engaging in block-evasion and continuing to edit articles. This is firm proof that your block should not be lifted any time soon. You've done enough trolling, I'm shutting down this talk page for six months. That's the soonest you can apply under WP:SO. Any more block evasion will take away even that path forward. --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arlene Aikenhead for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arlene Aikenhead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Aikenhead until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive messages about our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. If you would prefer to not receive additional notices of our monthly activities, you can let us know on our opt-out list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.1% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for September:

Hispanic and Latina women Women in the Olympics Women from New Zealand

Coming up in October:

Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries

Continuing from month to month:

#1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peta Bayley

The article Peta Bayley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cecil Vard

Hello, XerxesFalcon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cecil Vard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.