Jump to content

User talk:Xerographica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xerographica (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 4 March 2013 (→‎Nomination of Club theory for deletion: more evidence of harassment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Legal plunder, Xerographica!

Wikipedia editor Kumioko just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Since this has been here for 2 years I am going to mark this as reviewed but it needs a lot of cleanup work.

To reply, leave a comment on Kumioko's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

AVISO !!

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Consumer sovereignty. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 12:55, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Consumer sovereignty. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 12:55, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Fool me once, I'll assume good faith. Fool me twice, and AGF is no longer applicable. You, Rich and Rubin have consistently removed reliably sourced content and sources. AGF is no longer relevant...there's an obvious pattern of disruptive editing. Well...it's been obvious to me for a long time...but I don't see any evidence that your behavior will change any time soon. So eventually it will be obvious to other editors as well. --Xerographica (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at WP:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Your cute, snide, disruptive comments, such as asking Rubin if he is aware of what Wikipedia is about (as in here: [1]) are just intolerable. Again and again people have pleaded with you, cajoled you, and warned you to cut out with the comments that are directed towards other editors. You've received final warnings in the past, to no avail, but I will give you one more. Expect an Administrator's Noticeboard action if you keep this up. You were defiant in the past and your attitude got you weeks and weeks of blocks. Your editing experience on WP faces the same fate if you keep this up. STOP with the insulting, malicious, unfounded comments directed towards other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy and paste exactly what it was that I said that you consider to be a personal attack. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dif is posted in the warning. But since you "ask", you said: Also, are you aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Don't play so ignorant or stupid. Rubin is aware, and you know he is aware. Asking that "question" is not focused, in the slightest, on article improvement. (And it fails WP:AGF.) It is just like your "VDE" remarks awhile back. If you have any smarts, you'll go back and strikeout that line. And all the other PAs you've made. Given your history of PA, that will take you quite some time, but it might be a good learning experience for you. Xerographica, you might be able to redeem yourself if you do. I'll give you one more bit of advice: read All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubin is aware? Then explain why he said this..."A quick search offers numerous sources for the term, which are almost certainly not about the concept." --Xerographica (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The statement was just the latest example of his tendentious behavior. Forming the sentence as a question is simply "walking back" his stated personal opinion that Rubin does not know what policies are. He repeatedly questions qualifications of experienced editors, he accuses them of not reading the RS. Other examples from yesterday: "If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing." (at [2]), followed by "Ah yes, Rubin's Relentless Red Tape. We need a source about a source about a source about a source. You tightly tie your hands with ridiculous red tape so you can rationalize why you consistently fail to add any content to economic articles. Why don't you first read this source...and then tell me what additional sources you want me to fetch for you." ([3]). Xerographica is not interested in consensus, he prefers WP:GAMING. I understand, LGR, that you want to be fair, and I commend you for that fairness. But Xerographica's problem is not just with this particular edit. His "borderlining" has got to stop. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked Rubin on the consumer sovereignty talk page...whether the article should be about the term or the concept...here was SPECIFICO's response..."The term, as applied to economics." This isn't a dictionary...the article should not be "about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history"...it should be about the concept. What is the concept? That depends on the reliable sources. Here are plenty of passages on the concept...User:Xerographica/Consumer sovereignty. All those passages say the same thing. If you disagree with what they are saying...then it's up to you to find and share reliable sources that say that consumer sovereignty is something else. --Xerographica (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "a term as applied to economics" you said, "a term and its meanings, usage and history." You are playing the game "you said, who said?" Please re-read WP:NAD. Please see my edits and talk page suggestion we differentiate the economic term from the dictionary listing. Please discuss ideas and edits without gratuitous references to other editors. Also, I sincerely hope that you pay close attention to the text of the warnings on your talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T - 1

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

You may not do this. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or this. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or this.

or this.

or this.

or this.

or certainly not this.

SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that it's a personal attack to tell another editor to "read more, edit less"? If so, would it also be a personal attack to tell another editor to "measure twice, cut once"? --Xerographica (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby request you review your edits of the past several weeks and strike through all of the personal attacks and other off-topic comments about other editors. This might be your chance to clear the air here an move forward. Please consider this. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system

Category:Strategies for dealing with the two party system, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was already editing the CfD before you posted that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your message on ANI. FYI, it might be helpful for you to know that I have published on the provision and demand for public goods in refereed journals. Don't make the mistake of thinking that those who point out an error in your thinking are ignorant or malicious of intent. Sometimes they will be but it will not promote your success to assume that is the always or even usually or frequently the case. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I can know is based on the sources that you bring to the table. So far, you have yet to bring a single source to the table for any of our discussions. --Xerographica (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you miss the point. I assure you with great confidence that if you are able to take in other users' comments, ruminate, and keep them in mind until you are able to make sense of them, you will be greatly enriched. Many experienced and capable editors have tried to help you here, but you have squandered their wisdom and guidance. It's a pity, and what do you have to show for it? Just my personal advice. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, in all our discussions, all you've shared is your personal advice and opinion. If I was wrong, then you would have been able to provide one instance where you've brought a reliable source on economics to the table. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that my previous message to you was a question? The answer is (b): Nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Opt Out of Iraq War Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Opt Out of Iraq War Act 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/Opt Out of Iraq War Act 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 template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act 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/Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act 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 template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act 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/Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act 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 template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage userspace draft templates

I have added {{userspace draft}} templates to two of your subpages (the ones without templates). This may help avoid WP:UP#COPIES problems. – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No edits lately? Recommendations

I am surprised to see no edits from you lately, particularly to defend the articles you created from AfD. If you are on a break, you might add {{wikibreak}} to your user/talk pages. If you are gone for good or simply dialed way down you can post {{retired}} or {{semi-retired}}. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced rider

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please review WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:NPA. Please discuss content, not editors. The text you wrote on Forced rider did not conform to WP policy (and was, moreover, incorrect.) SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy and paste the personal attack. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think SPECIFICO was referring to the fact that specific editors were named in the talk page remark, followed by "tag team effort". The specification of editors was helpful in laying out who did what edits, and I don't doing so is not improper. The description of "tag team" may have been intended as an impolite remark, but it was not uncivil or disruptive. IOW, SPECIFICO's remark about NPA was not well founded. That's okay in itself; but I think it is best to drop this matter vis-a-vis SPECIFICO and Xerographica. Then you guys can get back to revising the article. (If a dispute erupts about particular portions, then dispute resolution may be helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:40, 3 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have been consistently harassing/stalking me... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica... yet I'm the one who ends up indefinitely blocked? They are clearly violating the Wikipedia policy against harassment...WP:Harassment...yet not once has an admin even warned them to cease and desist their harassment. Here are some of the articles that I've created... *Benefit principle *Forced rider problem *Preference revelation *Civic crowdfunding *Government waste *The Other Invisible Hand *Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy *Scroogenomics *Tax choice *Pars pro toto principle All of them, with the exception of tax choice, have been created within the past 5 months. Except, most of my time has been spent dealing with harassment from these three editors. Here's a recent example... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. For reference, here's a recent example of constructive (as in based on reliable sources) collaboration between myself and another editor...Talk:Public_choice#Preference_revelation. Xerographica (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You must address your own conduct, not that of others.  Sandstein  11:25, 3 March 2013 (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.

Nomination of Club theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Club theory 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/Club theory 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 template from the top of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – This nomination is now OBE. Upon suggestion of another editor a WP:BLAR of club theory to club good was accomplished. (Also, I initiated the AfD not knowing the block had been implemented.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, in the very beginning, I should have warned you, Rubin and SPECIFICO to stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me...
Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
You know I created club theory, and you knew it would irritate me if you nominated it for deletion. Same thing with civic crowdfunding. You know I created it and you knew it would irritate me for you to merge it into crowdfunding. Same thing with these three articles...
There are countless instances where you've followed me from article to article. When you posted all your evidence in this ANI...Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica...I thought it would be abundantly clear that you three were wikihounding me. Yet, none of the admins warned the three of you to stop. Instead, I get indefinitely blocked. For what? Simply for calling you out on your harassment. --Xerographica (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xerographica&oldid=541987974"