Welcome!

Hello, Exidor, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries are (a) incivil, and (b) inaccurate. Just something to consider, the next time you jump to a different userid Tedickey (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Different user ID"??? Oh, I get it: you are an idiot.--Exidor (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this comment of yours: "cross-platform doesn't apply since it's for executables that can be run w/o recompiling" clearly shows you don't know f**k as to what you're talking about. Please avoid spreading your ignorance on Wikipedia.--Exidor (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and follow WP:CIVIL. --Karnesky (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and follow "know what you're talking about before opening your mouth".--Exidor (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. There's an RFC on you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Exidor. Letting you know since no one else did apparently. Wizardman 01:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. They must have been too "civil" to let me know.--Exidor (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ConductResult|As a result of the lack of outside comments and a reply from the user, I am closing this RfC due to inactivity. User:Exidor is warned to be more civil in discussions, as civility sanctions could be imposed in the future if the community deems it necessary.}}—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2008

Fuck off.--Exidor (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that because it is so wrong. Massey is an unreliable source for Egyptology, and although there may be Egyptian influence on the Jesus story, the table is just nonsense. Horus baptised? A couple of non RS websites [1] [2] point out some of the problems, but if you research Massey's claims about Horus yourself you will see why it is nonsense. As an atheist I have no bone to pick here, only trying to make sure this article is encylopedic using reliable sources, and Massey's not one. As an Admin I'm also asking you to keep your edit summaries civil. dougweller (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please keep your edit summaries civil; when your only apparent reason for reverting someone's edit is that they're an "asshole", they'll feel angrily justified in changing it straight back. --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing wrong with calling an asshole "asshole".--Exidor (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note about this article and speedy deletion. Yes, an article that claims someone has "won awards" is probably enough to make the article immune to A7 deletion, because winning awards is a credible claim of significance. It's not necessary to prove that someone is notable for A7, just that there is a credible chance that they might be. Also I found (with a quick Google News search) evidence that he has significant press coverage. Really A7 doesn't fit here.

Please also be aware that it's usually bad practice to restore a speedy deletion tag after an uninvolved editor has removed it - A7 speedy deletion is really only for uncontroversial deletions where nobody would disagree (except the article creator usually!). If another independent editor disagrees that it should be deleted (and bear in mind you have TWO disagreeing with you now), that pretty much automatically means it's controversial, and not a speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deletion is designed for cases where there is really no doubt whatsoever about what would happen if the article was nominated for a full deletion discussion at WP:AFD - and in this case, that's just not so.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. either way (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

either way (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]