User talk:Xeugene

Welcome!

Hello, Xeugene, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ixfd64 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Pacifica Forum, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Pacifica Forum, you will be blocked from editing. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Your recent edit to the page Pacifica Forum appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your repeated falsification of the material quoted from the Eugene Weekly in the article Pacifica Forum. Thank you. --— Gavia immer (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pacifica Forum, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked January 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block for disruption - please do not continue adding content without prior discussion. While editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD in adding material, once it has been reverted or substantially amended then it is necessary to discuss the edits so an agreed addition, which will not be promptly amended, can be provided. Please review WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and engage with other editors on Talk:Pacifica Forum. Continued WP:Edit waring will result in further sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the discussion

You need to discuss your edits with other editors, as Wikipedia is based on consensus. Here is a direct link to the discussion about your edits to Pacifica Forum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xeugene and Pacifica Forum. Continuing to restore your preferred version of the article is disruptive and can be considered editwarring, which can make you subject to a block from editing. Katr67 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to what Katr67 said. The preferred place to discuss these edits would be at Talk:Pacifica Forum, though discussing them here on your talk page is fine too. The real trick is to discuss them somewhere. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

genuine misunderstanding, other people doing the same thing, not having read the instructions about 'edit wars'...

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (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.

Stonemason claims I simply posted my entire version of the Pacifica Forum page without discussion. I did - but so did he/she, so I didn't know it was improper. Another contributor claims I linked to a site run by Glen Reynolds. I did, but that was because it is the only place on the web where the article from Harpers magazine about the SPLC was available. It's nothing to do with conservative Reynolds, but liberal Harpers, which was a great supporter of the SPLC til they found out about it. Someone else says I made inaccurate claims from the Eugene Weekly. If so, that was a genuine mistake. Another says I refer to David Irving as a holocaust revisionist, or sceptic, rather than denier, because he does not deny the whole of the holocaust. This is true - denying something usually means denying the whole of it, rather than underestimating its extent. It is true that 'holocaust denial' has come to mean 'underestimating the current figure' but in history, as in science, no figure is final. I wish to add more information about the latest dispute around the Forum, and if I am allowed to, this time I will be more careful about following the rules. As for 'conflict of interest', I have no interest any more than the other contributors.

I have now belatedly read the whole discussion about my banning. I won't bore the administrator with detailed refutations and agreements - suffice it to say I will try to be a good boy in future.

One criticism is that I have only edited this one page. This is true, but my experience of editing a page about an obscure anti-war discussion group in Eugene and the efforts of its opponents to smear it on Wikipedia and elsewhere has discouraged me from throwing myself into bigger pages for the time being.

Thanks, X

Xeugene (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have given fairly detailed reasons for why I should be unblocked, and would be grateful if Tedder or other administrators respond to it. I am unable to add to the administrators' talk pages, only this one.

Xeugene (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

24.20.44.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]]: POV, ongoing insertion of content without discussion

Blocking administrator: Tedder (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The reasons why I wish to be unblocked are given above. Thanks, X Xeugene (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get very far attempting to whitewash Holocaust deniers, so you may as well give up on that completely. (Read the archives at Talk:Holocaust denial and you'll see this is a long-settled policy on Wikipedia.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're not going to get very far attempting to whitewash Holocaust deniers" - is that the reason I was banned? I have never questioned the figure of 5-6 million Jews - I have simply argued about the meaning of the word 'denial'. When I said David Irving underestimates the true figure, how is that 'whitewashing' him? The phrase "you're not going to get very far" doesn't sound like a fair-minded editorial comment, more like a political diktat. I have read the archives at Talk:Holocaust denial.

I can't find any other way to communicate with editors other than this page. I reiterate what I said about reading the rules, the fact that what I was banned for originally (before the 'denial' issue was raised) was following what others do, the reason I am only trying to edit this one page is that I don't have the time or energy to spend on other pages, given the effort it takes to insert a neutral point of view into the Pacifica Forum page. I didn't start this page, but when it started, it was incredibly biased. For example, when Pacifica Forum had a meeting on Martin Luther King, most of the meeting was taken up with saying how great he was. The author of the Pacifica Forum page only cited one speaker, who said some unpleasant things about the guy. I am trying to make the page more neutral - may I have my edit rights back? Xeugene (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- please see the top reason at WP:NICETRY. Basically, vowing to correct things without following the guideline of consensus that is followed at Wikipedia. In other words, part of civility is using reliable sources instead of primary sources, achieving consensus, and respecting compromise and existing consensus. Disputes can be handled through dispute resolution, not by edit warring (which is the main reason you were blocked. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Tedder, I've read the top reason at WP:NICETRY. I understand the need for reliable sources. But in some cases, I was just copying what others were doing. In other cases, I did accept compromises. But I didn't know I was supposed to actually read my messages. I certainly understand the ban on edit-warring.

Xeugene (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you agreeing to not edit war and to discuss changes first? I'd say "discuss controversial changes first", but, frankly, the subject matter is controversial. So I'd suggest discussing any changes first, on the article talk page. tedder (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Xeugene (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out for future reference that "the other guy was doing it too" has no place in mature discourse and statements to that effect won't help your unblock request. Katr67 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion? It is possible for Wikipedia to ban/block users from editing some articles but not others. See Wikipedia: Banning policy. Perhaps instead of blocking this user from editing all Wikipedia articles, we could instead simply ban him/her from editing Pacifica Forum and restore his/her editing privileges for all other articles? That would be a plausible alternative to an indef-complete-block. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]