User talk:Xll STICKY llx


 * If you want to be unblocked, I'd suggest you address your abusive behavior towards the editor with whom you disagreed - calling someone a "fucking moron" and a "fucking idiot" is not an acceptable way to discuss a disagreement over content. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then what type of block is it? I like how you "administrators" are so vague with your information and reasons. I was blocked because Funandtrvl got his panties in a bunch or his feelings were upset because of language that he may find offensive, but i do not. So he chose to report me for hurting his feelings rather than have a conversation like a man?

Well then Acroterion, in you infinite wiki wisdom, please inform me of what block I have? I assumed, obvious mistake, that most mods/admins.editors here try to be helpful with user rather than just simply jumping to use their or rather abuse the administrative powers on others.--STICKY


 * You're blocked because you've shown no indication that you're here to write an encyclopedia or to interact constructively with other uses. Every single edit you've made, including the notes above, have been either vandalism or abuse of other editors; the principle reason for your block is your attitude toward other editors. Disagreement with the cited source is not a license to change the text to "the Tenney, Minnesota Police Department" and to abuse those who revert to the sourced content. If you continue to abuse this page, we'll remove your ability to edit here as well.  As the notice says "your account is being used only for vandalism." That seems to sum things up succinctly.   Acroterion   (talk)   01:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at your contributions as an independent observer, I see edit-warring on an article and abusive attacks on another editor - and I'd expect a reviewing admin would want to hear what you have to say about those. (Oh, and it's a direct block and you should use an unblock request) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So attempting to have a logical conversation in this page has obviously again been perceived by you as an administrator as "abusive"? Are you kidding me... "The vandalism label is often too readily applied. Vandalism "patrollers" have to deal with the flood of recent changes, vandalism or not, and make quick calls on edits. Frequently they make incorrect ones" (Wiki: Do not insult vandals.)

I am not here to write an encyclopedia, are you? If so, maybe you should consult with Merriam -Websters. I came here this evening to fix something that is an obvious error. Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence can infer that the portion of the page I was attempting to correct is wrong.

So what we’re doing right now does not constitute constructive interaction? (xll STICKY llx)


 * You've moved beyond calling people "fucking idiots," but you have some distance to go. If you're not here to write an encyclopedia, what are you here for? That's what we're doing. You were welcome to politely point out that the quote seemed over the top, but instead you inserted something silly and then feel entitled to complain when it was correctly reverted.   Acroterion   (talk)   01:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for the information. I am sure you can see by my signatures at the end of each of these comments I am new. Unfortunately I have run into a few people who have rather delicate skin. I will follow your advice, its much appreciated! Thanks--STICKY

Acroterion: Maybe the ability to read new information and continually progress my understanding and knowledge in a wide array of topics? Obviously you have understood the sarcasm I used in my edit. The idea that they shoot more rounds than the Marine Corps is just as silly as the idea they shoot more than the smallest town in the United States. I know for a fact they do not shoot more rounds than the Marine Corps, I am sure you can imagine that information not being widely available..-- STICKY


 * Much better. You almost have me convinced; you'll need to understand that this is a collaborative effort, and that in a written medium like this sarcasm isn't easy to carry off. That's why we have edit summaries and article talkpages; so we can accurately describe what our concerns are. There's a constant discussion between editors from different cultures concerning an appropriate level of profanity; my feeling is that profanity per se isn't a problem, it's the intention behind the language that matters. English and Irish editors claim to have thicker skins in that respect compared to Americans; I don't see much practical difference. It's best avoided in most cases, though; you want to convince people that you're right instead of shouting. I'm inclined to reduce the block to 24 hours, which would be the normal term for edit-warring and personal attacks. I'll look again in the morning: I'm about to sign off for the evening.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion: That would be appreciated and I understand the concept of this being a productive medium for members from around the globe to converse and socially work together to create a working and ever evolving document that contains the most accurate information possible. Its fluid and I understand the need for administrators and editors alike. I was out of line and appreciate the consideration. Have a good evening. -- STICKY
 * Although I am not an admin (yet) I like to go around and see the various unblock requests. Most of them are like this: Unblock me now you fucking moron! This one though seems to have some feeling and determination in it... Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Call me a soft touch: I've unblocked. Please remember that persuasion is preferable to bluster, and that a certain amount of cussing is tolerated and sometimes even appropriate, it's not your first recourse. Sarcasm almost always falls fat - you're dealing with too many cultures for it to work very well, and insertion of obviously incorrect to make a point information just looks like vandalism.


 * As for United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, it seems to me that the quoted comment (which is referenced, by the way) was a little bit of authorial hyperbole by the author of the referenced book, not intended to be taken seriously and quoted in an encyclopedia. I think the source could support something along the lines of "trainees undergo an particularly intense amount of small-arms practice compared with other units" or something like that. It would be helpful to have access to the source or to a better source that addresses the issue. I strongly suggest that you mention it on the talkpage first; it's a high-traffic article right now and you should be able to get a conversation going.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)