User talk:Xander756

RE: Frieza Saga Expansion

I don't know. Frankly, it would be best if you just watch the whole Namek Saga and place episode sources (see {{cite web}}). Does that help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please partake in the discussion here before removing the data a third time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Son Gohan. Thank you. Using edit summaries would help other editors determine what isn't Vandalism.  UzEE  02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi there! Unfortunately we cannot give permission directly. You first need to post a note at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, and an admin (not necessary me, anyone can) will review your edit history and determine if you indeed need them. Since you contacted me directly, now I cannot grant you the privilege (it would be kind of suspicious if you post a request and I accept it since you already contacted me, even if you are the best vandal fighting and really deserve it). So, I suggest just requesting it there, and wait for an admin to check you out. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! It also says that administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests have specifically said they can be approached directly. I am not a member of that category yet. I may in the future, but right now I am not willing to judge others users for something I kind of think should be available for everyone, even anonymous. Sorry. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Hi there... sure, you can create pages for any pro lacrosse player. The only problem is that sometimes lacrosse player pages can get deleted because others who don't follow lacrosse don't consider them "notable", so you should make sure you include details and categories and such. Include the infobox as well, and if you have stats, include those too. Basically, don't just create a stub page that says "Joe Smith is a lacrosse player for the Toledo Mudhens" and nothing else.

I wrote a script that will format a player's career NLL stats, so if you add a current or former NLL player and want me to add the stats, drop me a line and I can do that in about 10 seconds. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

If you will cut and paste the complete email you got into an email to me from my UserPage, I will look into this for you. Please include any signature and preferably the email header text. This should not be happening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to identify yourself, that's fine. If you have Hotmail or other web-based email, you could send it to wikimail AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk and I'll pick it up from there. That's a general secure drop-box with guaranteed privacy and is accessible to very few, all of whom are trustworthy. This would be better than posting info here. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Socom II

Please be aware that those people are constantly removing valuable and factual/varifiable information all of the time. I have been on everyday, fighting to keep the information up by myself. I have no idea what their motivation is, but they obviously have an issue trying to control information on the subject at hand. They could have any number of agendas.

I have an ongoing list of TRUE I.P.s of the people that edit the page. The IPs themselves are connected to very interesting places. I am not particularly asking you to be on my side, but I appreciate the help keeping the real information alive.

Cached Entity (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Forrest Griffin

I think you are mistaken. A unanimous decision is not controversial. If you want the word in the article. Please cite valid references stating as to how to it is controversial. I will be enforcing the removal of the word controversial, as the use of it, is in itself controversial and does not represent a NPOV. Was it a shocking upset, Yes. Was the the results controversial, NO.Swampfire (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you also notice you did not try to take it to the talkpage. I will be reverting as. Even if you read the talkpage you will se this "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." So I will be removing it. The fact that a trainer that staked his carrer on Rampage winning and said he will retire if Forrest wins, holds no merit. Cited references from a Neutral source that say the decision was controversial or it violates WP:BLP Also a violation of WP:BLP does not need to be taken to talkpages. Also you have to revert 4 times to violate the 3RR. And removing a WP:BLP does not count as a revert. The source you have cited is an interview and not a source from a NPOV saying the decision was controversial. All 3 Judges scored the bout to Griffin. What a trainer thinks the score should be doesn't matter because he is judging with bias.Swampfire (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your user page. Added another reference of an objective article. You must understand that just because a decision is unanimous by judge score cards does not mean it is not controversial. --Xander756 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That is from the same site, In an article after the original so of course they will use the wording. As I stated find one from a neutral party and I won't mind. You must understand just because someone does not agree with the decision. Does not make the decision controversial.Swampfire (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sherdog is an official site for all MMA news. It is neutral and that article is written by an objective journalist. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. --Xander756 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say sherdog was not offical site for MMA. What I said was after they have already reported that the trainer has issue with the fight. They will begin using controversial because they are no longer looking at it from a NPOV. Wikipedia is not a newsiteWP:NOT#NEWS.And is held to higher standards than newssites. Which is why WP:BLP exists. So find something from the UFC or Dana White stating they thinkit is controversial. Or something from the commision. Because sherdog was tainted from a NPOV once they did the interview. And in effect you are using poorly sourced facts.Swampfire (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I also point out. "Wrestling Observer" Web site poll after the fight had 47.5% saying Griffin won, 27.6% saying Jackson won, and 24.9% having it even. That indicates a close decision, but not a decision that the majority would have had a problem with. And the fact that in the ring, after the match, Jackson conceded defeat saying, “He just whooped my ass. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Forrest is tough. He worked hard.” And in everything I have found connected to the UFC they do not think the decision was controversial. Also what he press scores the bout doesn't matter. But even as you pointe out, the press were close on only 2 things Griffin winning and it being a draw. Not one thing about Jackson winning thus taking away any controvery also. I have yet to post the tons of websites I have. But when Jackson himself "states his got his ass whooped" there is no controvery.Swampfire (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Swampfire (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

According to your own statistics, the majority of those in that poll did not think Griffin should have won. I will not discuss this any further with you. --Xander756 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have a site with the CompuStrike numbers. That proves there should be no controvesy. And when I revert I will be citing WP:BLP and including the link with the CompuStrike numbers to back up that it was not controversialSwampfire (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't prove something to be not controversial with numbers, you fool. I have shown you that the media and much of the MMA world has acknowledged it is a controversial decision. Using your own poll the majority of those who voted did not think Griffin should have won. This is not a debate as to whether or not you or I agree with it or if you or I like it, I personally am glad he won and thought he won fairly. The fact of the matter is that the community as a whole believes it was a controversial win and if you are trying to hide this information from wikipedia in bad faith, not only do you not deserve to be here but you should be ashamed for trying to push your personal agenda as well. --Xander756 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I did not conced anything in fact. I even stated Press scores does not matter. ONLY the judges cards matterSwampfire (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems you do not understand what controversy means. Something is determined to be controversial by the public, not by a select few people. Saying that only the judges score cards matter, you are not arguing if it is controversial or not but if it is official or not. Yes the judges scored Forrest to win and their scores were seen as controversial by the majority of the MMA world. --Xander756 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs

I have removed the section in question again pending discussion. If it is added back again without consensus being achieved for doing so at the talk page, I will request for the page to be fully-protected until such point as the issue has been properly discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user page. --Xander756 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested full protection. I expect you'll be able to come up with a better response that "it was like that for ages" while the page is locked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Xander756, you are lying by accusing me of blanking the page and vandalizing it. This is blanking a page?[1] Your defending material that had no reliable sources is going against Wikipedia policies of verifiable information from reliable sources. Discussion over the issue had already taken place over the Wikiproject's talk page and the offender's talk page in question. Jappalang (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know who you are so accusing me of lying about you is very curious. I do think the fact that you cannot even let the information stand while there is a discussion about it only only proves that you have some sort of twisted agenda here. It was a very reasonable request asked for by an objective third person. People such as you who cry and whine whenever they do not get their way (and falsely begin spouting policies they twist fit their ideals) do not deserve to be on wikipedia. --Xander756 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not know who I am and yet you posted this lie at my talk page?[2] I advise you to re-examine your actions if you are seriously unaware of what you are even doing. Jappalang (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I simply am enforcing the WP:Blanking policy. I do not subjectively keep track of users and so I just did not recognize your name. I don't know who you are but I am going to ask you to refrain for blanking pages in the future. --Xander756 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Blanking is not a policy. It is an essay. It is even an essay that is on a user page. You are not doing things out of policy. Again I advise you to look over your actions and rethink about them. Jappalang (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All I am asking is that you do not continue to blank the article. This should not be a difficult request to live by. I would advise you to read over the policy on blanking here [[3]] --Xander756 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not blank the article. Please do not twist "blank", a word defined in dictionaries as the "total absence of", into a jargon that is only understood by those reading that essay. Imagine what the common readers who never read that essay are going to think when you accuse someone of blanking a page. Is that your intent? Neither did I vandalize it. Your preferred version had totally unverified indiscriminate detail that even referred to unreliable sources. That goes against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE). In light of these many transgressions, removing them is a recommended action, one that is espoused even by Wikipedia's Jimbo Wales. Jappalang (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse for blanking an article without discussion else it be considered vandalism. You are being very rude when I am simply trying to explain things to you, you keep replying in a very threatening and adversarial manner. Please take part in the discussion on the discussion page of the article itself and provide basis for why this information should be removed and why it deserves to be removed rather than found references for. This should have happened before it was all taken out without any reasoning which is why I changed it back. To be honest, I think that it will ultimately be taken off and I agree with that. What I do not agree with is surreptitiously taking it off. --Xander756 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, discussion had already taken place. You seem to be ignoring what I said above about it having been discussed over at the Wikiproject and Cached Entity's talk page. It is ironic that you are calling me rude when you took the first action by falsely accuse me out of nowhere of blanking (making an article totally void of content) and vandalizing it when I did not, and saying "People such as you who cry and whine whenever they do not get their way (and falsely begin spouting policies they twist fit their ideals) do not deserve to be on wikipedia." There has been incivility in our discourse, but it was not the fault of mine. Furthermore, the onus of maintaining an article is not on those who find its information lacking, those who want the information kept should be the ones finding them. Do not make other people bear the responsilbility for you. You want the information, find the correct means (reliable sourcing) to get it kept. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking does not only mean that you make it totally devoid but also is considered blanking when you remove large sections of text. I checked the discussion page of the article itself before doing this, not of a wikiproject or a user that I have never heard of before. I have never said I want the information to stay, I simply said I wanted it to stay until a discussion has taken place. You cannot blame me for not finding these hidden discussions on pages that have nothing to do with the article at all. As I tried to explain on it's discussion page, I simply saw the blanking and reverted it. You could not expect me to check the wikiproject's discussion (never heard of them) nor that users talk page (never heard of him until after this). Please do not blame me for this as I have tried to remain objective. When I made the statement you quoted above I was under the assumption that you were simply a vandal trying to have his way so I apologize for that.--Xander756 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of blanking, like I said, is defined in that essay, not in the dictionary. If you want to claim that someone has removed large sections of the text and want to use "blank", you should say "blanked large sections of the article". "Blanking a page" to the general public means to make the entire page devoid of content. Please be more careful with your language. As for saying that you have no idea of what was going on, it is understandable if you do not know of the Wikiproject. However, it is harder to understand the part of you not knowing the user before this when he is the one who notified you,[4] and his talk page was entirely full of content regarding his actions. It would be best to investigate a little bit of the background of the ones who request you to do things, and the history of the events, before undertaking the venture. I accept your apology and will archive our thread on my page to this effect (i.e. Xander756 has apologized and retracted the statement of me being a vandal.) Jappalang (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I did link you to wikipedia's policy on vandalism in which under the table that lists blanking it says removing entire sections and large portions of the page count as it. Also that essay was written by an admin, not just some nobody. I gave you that because I thought it was be easier to read and follow for you. Also, I have told you that that user messaged me AFTER I already made the revert. I didn't read his user talk page when I left the message, either. It wasn't until you notified me about it that I read it and thus changed my opinion. --Xander756 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems with that. I also apologize for saying that you had a vested interest due to Cached Entity's request. You had stepped in before he made his request. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sad to see you swayed by constant barrages from people that simply want the information changed no matter how. Everything I posted has sources, links and are valid under the rules. What do they do to silence me? Have me banned over it, to get their way. I have to call the company itself to fix the situation. All I am asking, is for you to be a STRONG person. Look at my information and sources. You will find them valid. Cached Entity (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

other policies

Even so, That does not negate all the other policies you have chosen not to read fully. And most notably WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for which you broke twice yesterday. Swampfire (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not make 4 reverts in 24 hours you need to look at things.Swampfire (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite was done by Aktsu also you removed valid cites disproving the staements you provided, which is VANDALISM Also Stop spamming my talkpage and do not WP:DTTRSwampfire (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the exact same template you put on my talk page therefore if you are trying to claim WP:DTTR, you yourself would be in violation. If you want to claim vandalism then you cannot remove four cited references on the page with no explanation or discussion (cannot reach consensus with 2 users) without it being vandalism. The things you accuse me of doing are always done by you so I would tread carefully. --Xander756 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mistaken

Well, that was fast - I was about to leave you a message, but it seems you beat me to it. Anyway, I removed the tool based on these edits on the Forrest Griffin, which did not appear to be blatant vandalism, especially considering your recent report to ANI.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

I will not give you the tool back immediately, however this removal does not prevent you from getting it back in the future. Your membership in Wikiproject Lacrosse should not be affected by this (if it is, someone else needs a talking to), but this tool cannot be used for anything other than what is obviously vandalism. The four edits above were not that by any means, and the ongoing discussion and ANI report confirm this. You're welcome to ask another admin about this if you'd like, but no, I'm not restoring the tools now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user page. --Xander756 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I still would not consider the first three links to be blatant vandalism, especially considering this is an established user. I am about to sign off for the night, but I'm willing to continue this tomorrow if you feel it is necessary. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing referenced information without any reason is vandalism no matter how you cut it. --Xander756 (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the case and I'm afraid declined to regrant the tool at this time. Please consider using undo for vandalism, and remember to discuss other changes on talk pages where there is disagreement between editors. If you consider this decision unfair I'm afraid I can only direct you to WP:ANI for a further debate - however I'd urge you to simply live without rollback for a while until you can demonstrate that you will be able to use it only for vandalism as per the instructions at WP:RBK. Pedro :  Chat  07:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that you were using rollback in good faith. I'd recommend you ask User:Hersfold as he removed the tool - I'm not prepared to undo another administrators action in removing rollback so soon after it was performed. Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. --Xander756 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a response to your and Swampfire's argument on my talk page. Any discussion relating to your conflict should take place on ANI. The discussion on my talk page relates only to the removal of your rollback. In regards to that, however, I'd rather not reinstate your rollback until after this current conflict is resolved, since it is that conflict you were using rollback in. Come ask me once things are sorted out, and I'll consider granting it again. Rollback isn't a huge deal, and as Pedro said, you can easily work without it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The tool was removed because you were using it (from what I could tell) to edit war. Even if you thought that the edits you removed were vandalism, they aren't what I would consider blatant, which is the only thing rollback is intended for. Since the edit war in question is not yet resolved, I'm waiting until it's over to review your access to the tool. I am willing to accept at this point that you were acting in good faith, but I also note that you were not using the tool as it was intended, which is why it was removed. The wait is to make sure that you have a chance to smooth over your current conflicts, so that there won't be any chance of you even accidentally misusing it again in the meantime. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm off for a while again, should be back tonight. Sorry for the in-and-out business, but I am still on vacation. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Griffin Continued

As I just posted on Talk:Forrest Griffin I don't think the issue now is if it the decision was controversial or not (it clearly was), but how much space we're going to use on it in the article. I wouldn't mind a paragraph describing the controversy (especially as it was a championship bout, not some random fight), while you don't seem to agree :) I think this is something which should be worked out to have a consensus to point to in the future. Also, I think things like if fight descriptions are encouraged on event-pages is also something which should be agreed on (just to throw it out there). Thanks for joining the wikiproject BTW, and I hope all this won't put you off continuing to contribute. You input is very much appreciated :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Swampfire is still disputing the fact it is even controversial but he says he will concede this if we allow for "both sides" to be represented. This I don't understand because it was either controversial or not. I don't see any reason why Quinton Jackson's trainer should be mentioned anywhere on FORREST GRIFFINS article. Swampfire is simply trying to get this nugget into the article in an attempt to state that it WAS controversial but now isn't. See what I'm saying? He's not really conceding it was controversial at all then. I think that if we can all agree that it was controversial the best solution would simply be to note it as it was originally. Perhaps a sentence such as "Griffin became the new undisputed UFC Light Heavyweight Champion after defeating Jackson in a unanimous decision victory that many fans viewed as controversial." would be acceptable as it allows for interpretation. Thanks for welcoming me to the project but I truly am very upset over this. I have been defending the integrity of the article with no support from you nor anybody from the project. It makes me wonder if I should dedicate my time and efforts to this project if it is all meaningless anyway. --Xander756 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to speak for myself first, since it was originally only the two of you arguing I decided not to take sides and instead try to help work out a solution you would both be satisfied with. While doing so I guess I tried to both push my view of "detailedness" while also arguing that the decision was controversial. I guess I should have kept the two issues separately, thus immediately supporting you and then later discussed the "how much details"-issue. If it seemed like I was against you, I apologize. As for other members, I guess the problem is that there are, well, somewhat few of them :P. Also, I know at least some of them are on vacation and I'm sure they would've chimed in otherwise. Please don't take any of this the wrong way. You were of course correct when defending that the decision was controversial.

I guess what Swampfire want now is a detailed description explaining the controversy, similar to what I wrote a few days back. Again, I think that is a separate issue which needs to be discussed elsewhere too. I'm going to be supporting simply mentioning the decision was controversial for now, until there is a consensus on how much info is wanted. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Too be fair, you did misuse rollback as it should only be used for obvious vandalism (and _not_ over disputes). You should have no problems getting it back though if you display you understand why it was removed. Anyway, isn't the page back to how is was already? And I don't believe any admin will take any of the accusations seriously, so you have nothing to worry about. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I explained on the rollback page that I believed his edits were vandalism in the beginning as he removed referenced information without any reason which is vandalism the way I see it. Couple that with his account was less than a week old and edit history had edit wars and reverted edits on it so it's not like he is a long established user. Once the argument took hold I used undo and no longer rollback. But all of that is irrelevant. I think the fact he is trying to argue that since I no longer have rollback I must be wrong and not listened to and that the admins agree with him and not me is deceptive and incorrect. --Xander756 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, did you look at his edit before reverting? He was editing something completely unrelated. I'm working on the article right now, but I'm going to keep away from the Jackson fight at the moment until there is a consensus on if it should be kept as short as possible. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I should have looked at your edit :P Thought you were only reverting his latest addition. Still, again, I won't be changing anything related to the fight until an concensus has been formed. Sorry for editing this message so many times btw, I know you get a note about it every time :P --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey yeah, it was inevitable to not simply remove all the information even though some was valid. That's what happens when he is making multiple edits so quickly and putting the information in together. It would have been impossible to undo so I simply restored it to a previous version. It would be a plus if you could add back the other info. --Xander756 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you restored it to a version which was made after the version he reverted it to - so you basically restored all the good edits which were removed :D --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NLL Stats

Hey Xander, Just wanted to say I appreciate the work you have done on the NLL stats in the past. I wanted to let you know that what I have seen of your contributions have been positive and hope that you will continue. I realize that you are upset with the rollback rights, etc right now. But if I may make a suggestion, to step away and take a WP:Wikibreak. One thing I have done in the past when I gotten annoyed at things here at wiki is to remove items from my watchlist and just move on. Anyway, I realize this is all unsolicited, but just wanted to leave a quick note to say I appreciate your work and ask you to relax a little. Mitico (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Xander, just looking through the different diffs from ANI/requests for permission, etc, it has become very obvious to me that you feel that you have been "wronged" by the admins/community in regards to your edits. I will look into this, not as an admin, but as a fellow editor, and see if I can't make sense out of it for you. It is quite obvious to me that you are frustrated and probably confused. I don't want Wikipedia to lose you as an editor, to put it bluntly. If it comes down to it, I will personally restore your rollback rights if it means that you will stay and continue to improve the encyclopedia. In the meantime (I'm talking the next 24 hours), please please please stop posting in differnet venues to "plead your case". It is apparent to me that you feel that you've been "wronged". Everytime you post somewhere, however, it is only causing other users to "dig in their heels" in regards to your account. Again, I'll restore your rollback rights personally, but I need you to reply to this post to let me (and everyone else) know that you will refrain from over-posting at ANI/RFR/wherever, regarding this issue. Let me help you. The first step is that you swallow your pride and stop posting, and let someone help you. I'm going offline in about an hour, until then, I strongly urge you to stop posting in regards to this issue, and either logoff completely, or go about your business improving Wikipedia. Let me help you. You are a good editor, and a valued member of the community. Let me help you. Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't seen any help coming my way from your direction. --Xander756 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you kept posting "retorts" and "explanations" after I offered. I explicitly said above: I need you to reply to this post to let me know that you will refrain from over-posting... etc. etc. You never posted. Either here, or my talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 01:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to your signed comment, you wrote that at 21:21 on July 30th. My last contribution/edit on July 30th was at 14:37 which would indicate that I did not "keep posting retorts and explanations after you offered." It would indicate I logged off as per your comment. --Xander756 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So this doesn't count then? Also, I specifically asked you to post here, and you haven't until tonight. Do you still want assistance? I'm of the feeling that the "heat" has died down. Have you stopped posting in regards to rollback and in regards to Swampfire? Keeper ǀ 76 02:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That edit came over a full day after your post which would imply that that edit isn't what stopped you at all as one would have thought that you would have "helped" before a full day had gone by. I think your plan was to get me to stop posting and then disappear. --Xander756 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you really going to Wikilawyer your way through this? Do I need to retype what I said above? Did you even read it????? I said: Again, I'll restore your rollback rights personally, but I need you to reply to this post to let me (and everyone else) know that you will refrain from over-posting at ANI/RFR/wherever, regarding this issue. I have your page watchlisted (obviously, I posted here within minutes of when you finally replied to me). Nothing here has taken me "a full day" to do anything. You never replied to my message. What the hell was I supposed to do? You never replied! In the meanwhile, you posted yet another grievance to Pedro. Nauseating that you somehow are trying to project your own lack of contrition on me. I'm done with this. I offered to help you, I can see your side of things (I've read Pedro's take, and Hersfold's, and ANI, and RFP). Good day to you. You just got rid of the last editor that was willing to help you. Keeper ǀ 76 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it was all just a ruse. You can't expect me to literally ignore conversations. Pedro was asking me questions, was I supposed to simply stop talking? Don't be ridiculous. Not to mention that conversation was about a user's harassment, not my rollback rights. Didn't you say to stop talking about rollback? The edit you linked me to had nothing about rollback. I stopped posting on the issue expecting help and you tricked me. Then your excuse is "you made another comment". Then I explain that your "comment" was a day after your post and not even about it so you switch to "oh well you never posted saying I want help". I was warned about you and I guess I should have listened. Coming up with every excuse under the sun. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Xander756 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As tempting as it would be to simply type "fuck off" right now, I won't. You were "warned" about me? Laughable. You are useless to me. Every post I read of yours was trying to "get out of trouble" by some technicality. Nauseating. And overdone, I've seen it a million times. You honestly think I was trying to "trick" you? Good god, you have no idea who I am. My post above was sent with absolute sincerity. I sincerely thought you were being given a hard time, and I was offering my help. I watchlisted your frickin talkpage for god's sake. You never fucking replied. What, you thought I would restore your rollback privilieges without a reply? I don't care when or where you posted. I specifically and explicitly asked you to reply to me, I watchlisted your talk, and I was waiting. You never replied. When you finally replied (above), the only thing you were capable of doing was insult me and my intelligence. I replied kindly, and you insulted me and insinuated negatively about my motives again. You know what? Nevermind. I'll say again, I'm done with you, and I'll add a fuck you to boot. Unwatchlisting now. I will not see your response to me here, so "blast away" if it makes you feel better, you worthless editor. You have nothing to add to this encyclopedia in my opinion, you've bitten the hand of the one admin that was willing to help you. You are angry about getting "rollback" removed (even though rollback is laughably inconsequential and useless as a tool), and you simply are one of those "people" that can't fucking let something go. Worthless. If you have anything further to say to me that you want me to see, I recommend posting it either on my talkpage, or at ANI. Keeper ǀ 76 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper's initial post in this thread seems very clear. He wanted to help. In looking through this situation briefly (I poked my nose in a couple of days ago), if you had simply responded to Keeper's initial request to help you, you may have already had your Rollback rights restored. This is on you, not Keeper. Rollback's not that big a deal, unless you make it one, and that's what you have done, both above, and in the many forums to which you've posted your complaint. S. Dean Jameson 02:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

His recent reply only shows his true motives. I don't think that an admin here on good faith would have flung off the handle and lost his temper as he did. Cussing me out and lying are very obvious red flags. This is the part that gets me is that in his initial post he told me that I should simply log off. Then, he tries to say that I didn't message him so that is why he didn't help. How could I message him if I had logged off? This seems to be contradictory. Then, he states that I am a valued editor that he doesn't want to lose while later his true intentions come out he says I am a worthless editor that has nothing to add. So which is it? I will be reporting your personal attacks to a proper administrator. Someone like Keeper should NOT have admin powers if he cannot control his temper. --Xander756 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "Keeper should be desysopped because he cussed" complaint is your best plan. Seriously, you are so wrong about Keeper's motivations and intents. He's a genuinely good guy who was trying to help you get Rollback rights back. You ignored (or seemed to) his initial post. Then you reacted angrily toward him, accusing him of all manner of things. If you did that in a real-life situation, you'd certainly get cussing in return. As for your Rollbacker rights, I can nearly guarantee you'll never get them back. disclaimer: I am not an admin, so I have no power to give or take away these rights. This is just a simple observation of your interactions both here and in other forums. S. Dean Jameson 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xander, he's human. Humans get angry sometimes. If my memory serves, you yourself were getting pretty hot under the collar a couple of days ago. I also note he hasn't actually used his admin buttons. I'll ask you the same thing I've asked him; do you really see this argument being to your benefit? --barneca (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he is but he should be familiar with this little graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Difficult_editor_-_flow_chart.png/350px-Difficult_editor_-_flow_chart.png Maybe it doesn't fit 100% as it's not necessarily an edit conflict but the "keep cool' and "shower with wiki love" concepts are still valid. As for what S._Dean_Jameson said, perhaps it's not going to happen but there is no reason to not try it. Wikipedia should not be a popularity contest where someone who is liked will be ruled in favor of and someone who seemingly has few friends here has no say in things. An administrator should never lose his cool like that. As I said before, I was warned about him and thus why I replied initially how I did after waiting 3 days for his alleged help. If arguing against an admin earns you a spot in the dog house, then this really isn't a very fair place now is it? --Xander756 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, in addition to my previous question, I'll ask another: How has arguing with Keeper landed you in the dog house? If you don't want to talk about this, let me know, but I really don't see how this helps you, and I don't see how being yelled at has harmed you. --barneca (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As another user said, after this I will never get my rollback rights back. I don't see how rollingback vandalism and arguing with Keeper76 are related but someone said it nevertheless. Then there's my etiquette complaint where said admins are all trying to play it off as if it's my fault. There's no excuse for personal attacks and honestly if this just blows over without at least a warning, then it should show that there is something wrong with wikipedia. One should ask themself if I posted that on his talk page, what would be my repercussions? --Xander756 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I warned him for you. –xeno (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xander, humor me here. Imagine for a moment that Keeper really was waiting for you to answer him first. Imagine that his offer, in the face of every other admin declining to hep you, was sincere. Now imagine how it would feel to have you come back and immediately accuse him of bad faith. Assuming, for the moment, all this, wouldn't you expect him to get pissed off? And if so, why does it seem more reasonable to you that this was all some kind of trick, when the simpler explanation is that he was being above board? I'm sure you realize I'm not impartial here, but for what it's worth, I guarantee you that he made that offer in good faith, and was genuinely offended when you bit his hand. Unless you actually have a question for me, I guess I'm done here, but I can't help but ask what sneaky motivation you actually think he had? And what is the motivation of whoever it was who issued this mysterious "warning" to you about him? --barneca (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is why I let him talk himself into a corner. I did imagine that until he gave a reason as to why he did not "help me" that honestly could not have been so. When I told him that, he made up another reason. It's hard to imagine someone is sincere when they are doing this and then when someone blows up like that, it only goes to further that I was correct in my assertions. --Xander756 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP isn't supposed to be a game, Xander, in which you try to trick people into revealing their "true intentions." And you did nothing of the sort. You acted like a jerk, and Keeper got mad. It's really as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Headings

Bah, I misspelled WP:MOS. To quote: "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise capital letters are used only where implied by normal capitalization rules (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).", which it says also applies to section headings. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

??

First let me state, I am not saying this in anger or anything of the such, Also I am here to respond to the last message you left on my page. I am not here spamming, harassing, or stalking you. I never have. But how do you expect me to honestly join sides with someone that went out of their way to attack me, and libel me all across Wikipedia. I tried to be nice to you until you started with the attacks and spreading libel. Throughout it all I kept my kool until I saw the steps you were trying to go thru to come after me and then of course I am going to defend myself. In fact the last thing you did right before you came to my page and offered to work together, was to go to Aktsu to complain about me. Not to mention the way you tried to mock me on your userpage. How will it benefit me to always be looking over my shoulder? Do you plan to rectify everything you have done against me? So I honestly ask you, How do think I could be able to work with you? Please respond, this is an honest question. Note: I have went from having a dispute with a few editors to allies. Swampfire (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what is this? "No it wasn't controversial. See this poll? It says 47.5% of the people who answered agree!" Which BTW was not what I said, nor what the poll said.Swampfire (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to add a recent one from someone else so I must have just missed that one. It's gone. --Xander756 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll see where things go from here.Swampfire (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I could accomidate your request, It's done. Swampfire (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

I know you're upset, but using your userpage as a soapbox for your grievances is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a webhost, Xander. S. Dean Jameson 05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the userpage so it is in accordance with WP:Soapbox. It no longer holds any opinion so does not fall under any of the five criteria. They are simply declarative statements. --Xander756 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It still violates WP:WEBHOST, but I'll not revert you. The hole you're digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper, Xander. I'd recommend turning off the computer for awhile (a decently LONG while) and getting away from WP for a matter of days. Let this stuff go. Withdraw the WQA, and let it go. Return in a few days (or even a week), and you'll have a completely different perspective on things. As for me, my perspective on this, is that I should have been in bed three hours ago. Good night, and I hope you consider doing what I've recommended. S. Dean Jameson 05:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have let it go. You guys are the ones continuing it. How does it violate the webhost policy exactly? Looking at [page], it wouldn't exactly be a personal webpage, nor file storage, nor dating service, nor memorial. It is encylopedia-related as it pertains to wikipedia and it's policies. If you wish, I will add a section on why they are important to know? --Xander756 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I tried. S. Dean Jameson 05:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There I have re-written it to explain why they are there. According to WP:User_Page, you are allowed opinions on wikipedia and it's policies. These statements are there to guide users through their use of wikipedia. What is wrong with that?--Xander756 (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Nothing at all. Carry on as you were. S. Dean Jameson 05:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

<--(outdent). Along these lines, I've updated your userpage. Please revert me if you feel it is unwarranted to add something there (it's your userpage after all), but I thought a clarifier was needed. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Oh, hello! I was just wandering across the project when I came upon this page. It appears to be a bit too serious and gloomy around here. Maybe this can help:

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trust me, this place isn't always worth the investment of emotion and energy that you put into it. But, if you are fortunate, you can find good people to hang with and talk to. Be well and stay positive. And feel free to say hello if you see me engaging in any wreckage and ruin. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

From someone who used to do this and who doesn't want to see people getting in trouble.

1) To argue is to lose. You are either here to work on articles, or play silly games. Anything with any admin, any back end part of the wiki, any XfD or ArbCom or any of that is very simply always going to end badly. You'll be a lot happier here once you realize all these people do is waste time.

2) Everyone who spends more time writing policies and going over what should deleted and all of that rather than writing is , well, more people you don't want to be around.

3) The easiest thing to remember about vandalism is that there will always be someone else to catch it and no matter how much time you spend on it , it will always come back. You can find better things to do and enjoy them.

4) If there are articles here you like to edit, edit them. Don't do any more than that. Or otherwise you will end up upset because you're being mistreated by a pack of power-tripping goons. And that's not worth it.

A lot of wikipedians will try to tell you the work they do in admin and policy writing and all of that is very valuable. A lot of wikipedians, sadly, aren't worth bothering to listen to. (How long will one of them take to chide me about civility, I have to wonder?) The point is that if you let yourself be worked up, you are playing the game they want. If you simply don't care, though, you'll be okay.

If anyone has some kind of policy-based problem with me speaking with another editor, you can proceed to a place of warmth and energy --Logical Premise (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

mgs stealth/thriller

Hi. thankyou for contacting me. The main reason I reverted it is that we don't go by opinion on here, we go by references and acceptable references all use the terms action, adventure and stealth as the genre. Using thriller as a genre is far too ambiguous as there is no official thriller genre. The edit also changed survival horror to just horror, again far too ambiguous. Even the main Wiki article says stealth and always has. Thanks for not EW'ing. Remember sources not opinions mate. chocobogamer mine 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

yes and i said the sources call it action adventure and stealth. the best source is the box, and i have both versions, the substance one explicitly says it uses stealth moves. thats the best source you can have. chocobogamer mine 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Griffin

Yes, I watched the fight. I don't go by what a fighter says after the fight: Tim Sylvia said he was ok to fight after Frank Mir had broken his arm in two. When I posted that, Sherdog had it a submission. If UFC is calling it differently, than fell free to change the fight entries.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Xander756! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 935 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Stephen Hoar - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations

Hello there. I have redacted certain statements and allegations about Anita Sarkeesian from your talk page post, under the biographies of living persons policy. All material about living people must be supported by a reliable source, and this goes particularly for claims of a derogatory or disparaging nature. Please do not reinsert such without a proper source. For information on what constitutes a reliable source, see the reliable sources guideline. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I put it back. Her own blog is a reliable source. Don't edit it again. Xander756 (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Anita Sarkeesian. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit her page. I am speaking on her talk page to discuss inclusion about facts and have cited my sources. Please stop editing my messages. Xander756 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Her personal blog is a reliable source of information on her. Xander756 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Block & topic ban

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban on all article/talk pages related to gamergate, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned For making disruptive edits to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian including among other things inappropriate use of rollback, while already notified of the fact that discretionary sanctions were in effect, I am indefinitely topic banning you from any article related to the gamergate controversy, broadly construed. I have additionally blocked you for two weeks as a normal administrative action (i.e., you can appeal the block by using the {{unblock}}.) template on your talk page, and can appeal the topic ban using the procedures listed below.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Sarkeesian page

As it concerns the issue you were stating on the talk page, BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia and not just articles. While primary sources are acceptable regarding BLP, your comments made inflammatory claims not explicitly supported by the sources provided. Your use of rollback in this case was also wrong as it should not be used for contentious removals. People removing material from your comments may upset you, but it does not constitute vandalism if a reasonable policy-based concern is raised regarding your comments as was the case here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. That user has a history of edit wars and obsessively editing only articles related to gamergate and feminism. I politely asked him on his talk page to please refrain from redacting my comment again and that future redactions would be construed as harassment. Surely if my comment was inappropriate another editor would be able to come in and point it out as well - it doesn't need to fall solely on his shoulders. He ignored this and continued to wrongfully redact my comments over and over thus his edits became vandalism and I rolled them back. I immediately then went to the admin incidents board asking for help. So basically I was the one getting the staff involved. Imagine calling the cops because someone stole your wallet and the cop arrested you for punching the thief in the face. Doesn't make sense does it? Xander756 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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).

Xander756 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block instituted by Kevin Gorman. Kevin's block of me on Wikipedia is unwarranted because I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006. First off, I do not feel I abused my rollback rights as it was my understanding I was using them to revert vandalism of a user who has a history of edit warring. I asked him to stop redacting my comments or it would be construed as harassment and he continued anyway, so I rolled back his vandalism of my comments then *I* went to get help from the admins. Kevin, a feminist who has been deeply involved in editing articles related to feminism, was the one who responded and no surprise to see he sided against me. He is NOT an uninvolved administrator as he claims to be. This is abuse of powers because there is a clear conflict of interest and his ban is unwarranted as shown by another user on Kevin's talk page User_talk:Kevin_Gorman#Xander_sanctions If a subject ban is inappropriate a complete Wikipedia ban should also be inappropriate. I was a wiki editor in good standing before this and went form a privileged user with rollback rights to being completely banned from Wikipedia within the span of 5 minutes. After being warned on my talk page I did not edit the page in question again after that and yet was blocked anyway therefore this block is unfair and should be reversed. Xander756 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A few points:

• You have been here for quite some time, yet you don't seem to understand the purpose of rollback. Rollback is not for edit-warring. Period. Let's put aside the context of your reversions (which has already been discussed on ANI) - you do not get to construe another editor's opinion as vandalism. Not only is that not the purpose of rollback, it's blatantly opposed to our principle of assuming good faith.
• Accusing Kevin Gorman of having an ax to grind is equally disrespectful. You are not in the position to lecture another editor on how they should act based on your interpretation of their interests.
• You are not completely banned from Wikipedia. You're blocked for two weeks. The only section you're topic banned from is described in detail above.

On top of that, you haven't addressed the reasons for this block (as clarified on ANI) at all. You've only pointed fingers. My suggestion - take a breather, look at the situation from a renewed perspective, and either create a new unblock request or wait for the block to expire. If going the former route, please ensure you touch on A) how you understand why you were blocked and B) how you will avoid doing it again.
Let me know if you have any questions, m.o.p 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Xander756 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason for the block stated was that I abused my rollback permissions so me talking about rollback is indeed addressing the block. As you can see it was unwarranted and should be reversed. Also rollback is to revert multiple edits of vandalism with one click instead of multiple. That is how it was used in this instance. Reverting vandalism with rollback is grounds for losing it?

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=The reason for the block stated was that I abused my rollback permissions so me talking about rollback is indeed addressing the block. As you can see it was unwarranted and should be reversed. Also rollback is to revert multiple edits of vandalism with one click instead of multiple. That is how it was used in this instance. Reverting vandalism with rollback is grounds for losing it?  |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=The reason for the block stated was that I abused my rollback permissions so me talking about rollback is indeed addressing the block. As you can see it was unwarranted and should be reversed. Also rollback is to revert multiple edits of vandalism with one click instead of multiple. That is how it was used in this instance. Reverting vandalism with rollback is grounds for losing it?  |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=The reason for the block stated was that I abused my rollback permissions so me talking about rollback is indeed addressing the block. As you can see it was unwarranted and should be reversed. Also rollback is to revert multiple edits of vandalism with one click instead of multiple. That is how it was used in this instance. Reverting vandalism with rollback is grounds for losing it?  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Xander756 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)