User talk:Xkit

Welcome!

Hello, Xkit, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Why was I blocked in the first place? Xkit (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

CheckUser verified, good faith user caught in rangeblock, IP block exemption granted. WilliamH (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I clicked "Edit" on a talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluoride&action=edit

- I got the following message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 68.127.128.0/18 has been disabled by J.delanoy for the following reason(s):

CheckUser evidence has determined that the IP address or network of your account has been used, not necessarily by you, to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information.

Why did I get that message? Xkit (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says there why you got it. Follow the instructions which follow that message and you'll be set. — Joseph Fox 09:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AS the message says, you got it because someone (possibly not you) who uses the same IP addresses was very bad and got blocked. You're quite probably collateral damage. When you read WP:GAB it explains. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. WilliamH (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WilliamH. What was done from this IP address that justified blockage? Who initiated the block? Nobody else on this network (just my wife and I here) would vandalize Wikipedia. What's going on? If my machine is compromised, I'd really like to know.
All I know is that the block occurred shortly after I edited Flouride Discussion page. My edits were answered with bias (red herring and accusal of conspiracy theory). That user User:Smokefoot had previously initiated an edit Edit War on Hexafluorosilicic Acid (I backed out of that). Then I was blocked and even *after logging in as Xkit*, I could not edit that page and got the warning. Also, if my IP was blocked, then I would like to know why. Xkit (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the talk page on fluoride, I would like to direct you to the policy on certain comments. Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a personal attack is. How about when a user claims that another is a conspiracy theorist to discredit that poster, saying that such person can't hold much traction? That is ad hominem in the strict definition. It is a pure attach on character in attempt to discredit. Why can't the pro fluoride folks show the science to back up their mystical claims? I've been asking for research from my very first comment there. Did you see them? Read the discussion from the start. I'm all about staying on the issue. Personal attacks, including unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, are off topic. My cordiality was brushed off when a user started an edit war with me. His subsequent comments helped set the tone for the discussion. It is what it is; hopefully elucidating. My comments should remain even if I am banned (given the stage, I would not be surprised if that happens).
NB. IME, personal attacks can be addressed by stating specifically what was offensive. I recommend this approach to you because it worked for me. Regards, Xkit (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Xkit. You have new messages at Talk:Fluoride.
Message added 20:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Phearson (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone it down

It's pretty clear that you are emotionally vested in conspiracy theories. That does not excuse your continual personal attacks against people who support mainstream views. If you can't restrain your attacks and focus purely on the content (per WP:NPA) then you may be blocked from editing. Note that any editor whose contributions here were so consistently add hominem would receive precisely the same warning. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You have been warned about this before, you know the problem, now is the time to fix it or leave. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Off

What're you complaining about? Nothing substantive. You're mad, so you made a generalized personal attack to polarize me as a conspiracy theorist, dressing that up as thinly-veiled criticism.

ArbCom: You may be interested

Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hydnum repandum/GA1

Hi- I have moved your comments to the article talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]