User talk:X4n6

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For you cogent contribution to Talk:Tom Eyen on the subject of infoboxes. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar time!

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice work on the piece on Willie J. Hagan. I caught that in the New Pages queue and found it to be well done. Thanks for your effort! Carrite (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

For work on Mohsen Milani. Thanks. Bob. scope_creep (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

X4n6, thank you for the barnstar. It was a great unexpected surprise when I saw it in my talk page and I want you to know that I truly appreciate it and your kind words. For me it has been a pleasure and an honor to have interacted with you. You take care, my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. The feeling is genuinely mutual. I'll look forward to the opportunity to work with you again. Until then, please see your talk page. Best regards. X4n6 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Honor

You have been among the best people that I have ever interacted with. Therefore it is with great pleasure that I have placed your user user name in my Wall of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marine 69-71: My goodness! I really don't know what to say besides thank you, Tony. I am deeply honored and genuinely touched. But I'll also continue striving to earn such high praise. This will serve as a potent reminder in that effort. Many thanks again, continued best and warm regards. X4n6 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page block

You have been blocked from Lauren Boebert and Talk:Lauren Boebert for a month, for edit warring at the article combined with persistent bludgeoning of the talkpage. I note in particlular that you misleadingly called this article edit a copyedit and, bafflingly, removed a talkpage post by Objective3000, no reason given. This was brought up on Objective's talkpage, where, instead of restoring their post with a humble apology for an either very aggressive or very careless action, you generously conceded that "I won't object to you restoring it". Not good enough. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Also, I have a comment to you about how you manage this, your own, talkpage, even though it's not relevant to the block. You're allowed, with certain exceptions, to remove posts on it. But I hope you understand that anybody reading the page history will be unimpressed by the way you promptly remove 100% of anything criticism-like, while keeping 100% of all compliments, thus turning the page into a festival of congratulation? Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

It is genuinely unfortunate that I let this nonsense go unanswered for as long as I did. But the blunt fact is that real life has been far more interesting - and frankly, infinitely more productive lately - than responding to some year old absurd and unjustified block from a ridiculous "admin" whose clear agenda extended well beyond protecting the integrity of this project.

To be specific, what was my ancient "offense?" I insisted on an "encyclopedic" rationale for omitting Education from the Infobox of Lauren Boebert. Yes, THAT Lauren Boebert. She, of the infamous theatre groping, carpetbagging, first GOP congressperson in 24 years to initiate impeachment proceedings - which, by the way, promptly went nowhere since her claims were nonsense, etc. Anyway, all I wanted was for the Infobox to reflect her education - which, as the article itself plainly states, the fact that she did not graduate from high school, but obtained her GED. The article also notes she only received that, just prior to running for office.

So this wasn't controversial or prejudicial info - which some absurdly claimed as BLP objections. It's already reliably sourced in the article! Yet folks who clearly felt it was their responsibility to "protect" her from this fact, combined to object to its inclusion. Nevermind that it's already in the article. Nevermind that education is a consistent ingredient in Infoboxes throughout this project. Especially for national U.S. political figures. Nevermind that not one objection was based upon the "encyclopedic rationale" I requested.

But was their motivation or objectivity questioned? Of course not. Instead, the "admin" blocked me for - heaven forbid - engaging in debate with those who posted the flimsiest and most transparent objections! The rules require discussion to resolve disagreements. But apparently, those discussions need to occur by osmosis or mental telepathy, since debate is apparently, according to this "admin" unacceptable.

Moreover, this "admin" also had the temerity to complain about how I compose my own talk page. Newsflash: MY talk page is not here for you. If you dislike it's composition, stay the hell off it. As long as it's composition does not violate any rule, guideline, policy or position - which even the "admin" never alleged - then it is not and should not be the subject of your critique. Certainly not in your capacity as an "admin." If you want to editorialize as just another editor that's fine. But again, frankly, who cares about your opinion? You don't like it? Stay off it. But to complain under the guise of an "admin" with zero reference to any actual policy or guideline violation, was outrageous, obnoxious and completely out of line.

So here's where we are: you're incapable of imposing any block of a longer duration that my own voluntary self-block, which as you can see, was substantially longer than your block - which was the longest of my almost two decades long tenure here. And why? Not because of anything I did wrong, because I did nothing wrong. But because of my disgust with your actions and your flimsy and pathetic excuse for them. You took a long-term editor, who diligently and diplomatically tried to better this project FOR YEARS and you made me reconsider and reevaluate my time here.

I still value WP, what it attempts to do, what it stands for and the valuable service it diligently tries to provide. That's the only thing that prevents me from closing my account altogether. And any future contributions on my part, such as they may be, will still continue to have as their sole objective, the betterment of this project. Re-read that VERY carefully. So you cannot later claim I'm not here for constructive contributions. But in turn, WP has to work harder to be better. It has to work harder to keep in check the agenda pushers and the "admin" apologists and enablers who have infiltrated and diminished it. Otherwise, this project will continue to hemorrhage experienced, knowledgeable and well-intentioned editors, whose contributions this project desperately needs to maintain any vestige of relevance and credibility. So do better. Be better. X4n6 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]