User talk:X-Editor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speedy deletion nomination of Concert Properties

Hello X-Editor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Concert Properties for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Hi X-Editor. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concert Properties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please note that {{stub}} goes right at the end of an article -see WP:ORDER. Putting it anywhere else makes life harder for stub-sorters. Thanks. PamD 23:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mount Dennis (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Mount Dennis (disambiguation), X-Editor!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please note that disambiguation pages should only list things that have the same name and are thus likely to be confused, not titles that are merely similar to each other or are partial title matches. The articles Mount Dennis and Mount Denson do not need disambiguation from each other. Also, disambiguation pages should have only one link per bullet point, so that the reader is quickly and accurately conveyed to the correct page. I've removed improper titles, and since this only disambiguates two articles (Mount Dennis is the primary topic, Mount Dennis station is the only other article which might realistically be called "Mount Dennis"), I will nominate this page for speedy deletion, since it functionally duplicates the hatnote at Mount Dennis.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mount Dennis (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Mount Dennis (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why Revert a valid edit on LoTT page?

Dear X-Editor I see you reverted a valid edit I just completed - reorganizing content based on flow and structure as well as adding a comment to editors that the "teachers were fired" statement is dangerous and should be either fully verified using a reliable source, or removed. Just because there's a media article saying that someone says that someone was fired because of this account's posting, doesn't make it true. Yes, it's true that someone said someone said someone got fired.... but unless there is proof, it does not belong in an encyclopedic article. I'm curious as to your rationale for reverting the edit since you did not list one in your edit summary. I did not remove the statement but added an editor-only invisible comment so someone with actual verifiable content could add it..... why revert this non-controversial edit? Addressing it would improve the article. Best, The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You deleted a paragraph in the last section, which is why I reverted your edit. Go ahead and fix the grammar again. X-Editor (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sunnybrook Stable Fire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sunnybrook Stable Fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunnybrook Stable Fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quek157 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I withdrawn the nomination since you had added all info, I turned it into a redirect. I hope you can expand on things rather than one article, the park itself is not defensible per WP:ROTM and WP:GNG already FYI. --Quek157 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatblogging (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fatblogging and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fatblogging, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pole Position

You don't need to put MAME or other emulators under ports, per this edit. Practically every arcade game can be played in MAME, so we don't need to mention it. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why I added that. X-Editor (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ZI Jony was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:X-Editor/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:X-Editor/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I had no idea the other one had been submitted! X-Editor (talk)

HEY

Listen, I understand your saying, but honestly. Your making it very difficult for me to enjoy Wikipedia now. I hope your satisfied with the deletion, but know that people who word comments so rudely that it puts a bad rep on the wiki. I don't even like the game! It was just fun to make an article that was a W.I.P!!!! So thanks, also real original name :( Timwardo (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please calm down, I am not trying to be mean to you. I'm just pointing out that your edits were uncyclopedic as metioned in the AFD. Also, the article is getting deleted because there are not enough independent, reliable, secondary sources for it to be on this website, see the nominator's comment on the AFD page for more information. Also, complaining over your edits getting deleted and articles getting deleted is just not worth it. Please listen to what other people have to say before you get mad at people like me. Three of my articles were deleted, but did I whine and complain about it? No, instead, I looked at their point of view and understood why they were doing what they were doing. Wikipedia has rules, and if you don't like them, then leave. Also, you insulting me for wording myself rudely is very hypocritical because you insulted me as well at the end of your comment by making fun of my username. Please do not leave bad faith comments like the ones you left and attack others just because they deleted your edits or articles. If you want to act like that, then this website is not for you. Again, i'm not trying to be rude. X-Editor (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

On Ujjawal Krishnam

I strongly believe that article satisfies the minimum criteria of notability and should not be abruptly deleted. Instead, an improvement is needed. Please do take part in AfD. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't participate in that AfD. I think you're talking to the wrong person. X-Editor (talk) 20:24, June 20 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parascenium (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Firefly was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Parascenium and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Parascenium, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, I just submitted it because it was in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and I wanted to see what would happen if I submitted it. X-Editor (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Apple Watch Series 4 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Apple Watch Series 4. Since you had some involvement with the Apple Watch Series 4 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ping-O-Tronic has been accepted

Ping-O-Tronic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(t) Josve05a (c) 02:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

John Francis Fortescue Horner

Last month you added a "Context" banner to the article on John Francis Fortescue Horner. I have just got around to looking at this and wondered if you could explain a little more (perhaps on the article talk page) about what you think is needed?— Rod ^talk 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, more is needed in the introduction. X-Editor (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at expanding the lead, could you take a look and see if this is what you wanted?— Rod ^talk 08:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. X-Editor (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 14:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parascenium (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Parascenium and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Parascenium, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Special measures apply to cryptocurrency related pages

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as 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.

MER-C 11:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! X-Editor (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Jimmy Wales are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See User:Jimbo Wales on how to contact him. An article talk page is not suitable for this. 5 albert square (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary on the page in question, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the valid talk page enquiry that X-Editor made. MPS1992 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but this does not answer my question as to wether or not this is a reliable source or not. I'll ask the question at the reference desk if none of you are going to answer my question. X-Editor (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard might be better placed to help. MPS1992 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll go there instead. X-Editor (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nintendo Switch Pro Controller (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello, I'm INeedSupport. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Why you messed up the subtitles in the article? I highly doubt it was intentional, but please watch out next time. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't try to remove certain text for no reason, I was just trying to convert a url to prevent link rot, but for some reason, I must have accidentally removed certain things that shouldn't have been removed. Sorry about the mistake! X-Editor (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Nintendo-Switch-Console-Docked-wJoyConRB.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Nintendo-Switch-Console-Docked-wJoyConRB.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nintendo Switch Pro Controller (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wii U Pro Controller has its own article despite it being shorter than my draft, so I don't see why the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller can't have its own article. It's better to have information solely about the pro controller on its own article rather than have a short paragraph overview of the Pro controller on the Nintendo Switch Wikipedia article. X-Editor (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nintendo Switch Pro Controller (October 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nintendo Switch Pro Controller, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Fitness Boxing has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fitness Boxing. Thanks! JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fitness Boxing has been accepted

Fitness Boxing, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: VideoSport MK2 has been accepted

VideoSport MK2, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shooters Network (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shooters Network and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shooters Network, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JC7V-talk 05:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The USA Today source is reliable but not independent as it contains material from a interview that Buzzfeed did with the creators of Shooter's Network. See WP:RS for more help. Need more than primary or press releases sources. JC7V-talk 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Shooters Network has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shooters Network. Thanks! JC7V-talk 05:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Shooters Network has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shooters Network. Thanks! JC7V-talk 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Fitness Boxing.

I suggest leaving the stuff by the commas like other Wikipedia articles have them sorted. It baffles me how people use their own Wikipedia pages to look indifferent from others, when that is not the case. Administrators need to check it first. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: You are assuming that I said that I am the creator of the article to make it seem as if I am indifferent, but that's not the case. I only said I was the creator because I wanted you to take what I was saying seriously and because I want the article I created to not have any uncited claims. However, I will take your suggestion above about the use of commas and I am sorry for the mistake I made in the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, this comment you left in the edit history,"READ THE REFERENCES BELOW! We don't need multiple same sources when we have multiple sources already stated in one of the paragraphs. Don't use br and /br crap when adding genres." is extremely rude and would likely violate WP:Civil. If you are going to argue with someone on Wikipedia, please refrain from swearing. X-Editor (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, your comment in the edit history of Fitness Boxing violated Rule 1d in identifying incivility. X-Editor (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, X-Editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, X-Editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fatblogging

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fatblogging".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of the draft. I don't plan on improving it. X-Editor (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hello (company) has been accepted

Hello (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jack Rat Terrier

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jack Rat Terrier".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GigLocator (December 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GigLocator and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GigLocator, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JC7V (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You support Nintendo?

You support Nintendo for takedown good fangames or not? 178.121.221.177 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I support Nintendo in general, but I do not support them taking down fan games. I hope that answered your question. X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I no longer support the company itself, but I still like their consoles and games. X-Editor (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

San Ignacio Town Airstrip ref improve

Hi X-Editor. I've pulled the refimprove tag from San Ignacio Town Airstrip. It has two stub tags on it already. Shortage of refs is kind of implied by the stub tags. I've searched for refs and there isn't much to find, so if you come up with any on this airport, please add them in. Thanks Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I'll see what I can find. X-Editor (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gab (social network); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I started a consensus on the talk page of the article and the people there seem open to chnaging the text in the lead to more accurately reflect the sources, so I don't think any of the editors really disagree. Thanks for the warning though! X-Editor (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve, expand and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I'll take a closer look at the article tomorrow. X-Editor (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tauthanhhuyen34: Looks fine to me! No need for a copyedit. X-Editor (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Countesswells) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Countesswells.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please edit the draft.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|I dream of horses}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I didn't create the page, I just saw it on Special:New Pages and after I edited it, the article became a draft and the edit I made became part of the non-draft article and after that, it said that I created the non-draft article, even though I didn't create it. I know it doesn't make that much sense, but trust me, I did not create that article and I don't know why it says I did. X-Editor (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice at reverting vandalism

Next time you see someone else editing people's comments to alter its meaning, make sure to revert in whole, not just your own comments. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll do a full revert next time something like that happens X-Editor (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest?

Hi, X. Are you personally, or financially related to Gab, or Andrew Torba in any way? If so, you must declare it. Undisclosed paid editing is a serious violation of our policies. If not, feel free to ignore or remove this post. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediatly until you have done so. Sorry for the confusion. I'll leave the detailed notice below. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello X-Editor. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Gab (social network), but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:X-Editor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=X-Editor|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: No, I do not work for Gab or Torba. X-Editor (talk)

Apple TV

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You reached 3RR with this edit. Please do remember to follow WP:BRD make good use of talk page. I believe this has been discussed before. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: I apologize for that. X-Editor talk 22:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Gay Frogs listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay Frogs. Since you had some involvement with the Gay Frogs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gab (social network); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Using edit summaries

It's generally a good practice to fill in edit summaries for every single edit, so please consider doing so. Even simple ones like "ce" (copyedit) or "expand from XX source", etc, will help. It'd be a courtesy for other editors as well. And also please make sure edit summaries are accurate for the nature of the edit. Details may be found here. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: I'll try to fill out edit summaries more in the future. X-Editor (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Final warning on Gab (social network)

Even after May 26 warning to you about your longterm disruptive editing on Gab [1], you are still quoting Torba [2], still adding misinformation [3], still removing or changing sources without explanation [4], [5], still adding unnecessary clutter to the article [6], [7], [8], still editing promotionally [9], still edit-warring [10], and still failing to use edit summaries [11], [12]. Every single edit you make has to be carefully checked by an experienced editor, and is usually reverted or massively corrected. This is your final warning. I advise you to voluntarily absent yourself from Gab (social network) before you are officially topic banned from it. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Thank you for providing evidence to support your claims this time, and yes, I will stop editing the article. X-Editor (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The next controversy

Did you remember I told you there was going to be another controversy? QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See "My opinion is that there is a controversy taking place on Wikipedia. It could spill over to Wales' talk page and so on. It may be two years before something like this happens again. Will you be around two years from now?"[13] QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:GigLocator

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "GigLocator".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 06:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of mergers and acquisitions by Fitbit

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of mergers and acquisitions by Fitbit".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 11:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ds alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—valereee (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Aderonke Apata for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aderonke Apata is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aderonke Apata until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a look back, and you did a very good job of fixing it. I don't think I'd have nominated it the way it is now. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The whole situation was definitely a learning experience for me and your nomination is what helped me improve the article. So thanks! X-Editor (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Patriot Party (political party) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patriot Party (political party) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriot Party (political party) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Seagull123 Φ 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Galipeau Island

The article Galipeau Island has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One of hundreds of small islands in Georgian Bay, no explanation of notability, which is not established with substantive sources, fails WP:GEOLAND

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Greg Kouri

Hello, X-Editor,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Greg Kouri, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|John B123}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@John B123: Go ahead and delete the page. Now that I look at it, he clearly isn't notable enough. Was not aware of the previous deletion discussion. X-Editor (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

please help me to get my first article published

Hello hope you are doing good , i'm new here on wikepedia i don't have too much knowledge about the rules of wikipedia , i have just started contributing on wikipedia as someday's before i went through a Draft:Junaid Bhat which was declined because it was totally incomplete and there were not enough supportive url's in the draft , so while checking this draft i went through internet and collected the information regarding the mentioned person and took this draft as my first contribution on wikipedia so i started recreating this draft which is complete now and has been sent for submission : please i request you to help me to get my first work published thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Prakrutiprajapanti: Welcome to Wikipedia! I've fixed up the article you made a bit. If you want to know how to edit Wikipedia, I would suggest getting started here. I'm not the type of guy on here that reviews pages tho, so if you want your page to be reviewed, you're gonna have to ask someone else to do the review, otherwise, you'll have to wait a few months for the article to be reviewed at most. I hope this helps. X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

P has asked many editors to help her with her drafts. She has been advised to do her own work. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated The Million Dollar Homepage for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rumble (website), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please stop adding things some random wacko on Parler or Gab posted. I find some twitter or even wikipedia user who did bad things. Even Parler and Gab deserve fair treatment. No online service can be held responsible for everything their users do. If we had a source saying that the behavior was reported and the service chose to allow it that would be a different story. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Fine X-Editor (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Greg Kouri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greg Kouri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Kouri (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Apology

My apologies, I accidentally undid your edit rather than the one before yours, which is now moot without the background section. Natureium (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC) No problem. X-Editor (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Your edit to Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. X-Editor (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Nathalie Van Raemdonck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathalie Van Raemdonck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Van Raemdonck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Standard Noticification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: What past disruption have I done in the COVID-19 topic area? I'm confused. X-Editor (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a standard notification and as such just says you've have shown interest. That said some of your recent article at a glance may be concerning including your recent good faith article Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia which violated Wikipedia:MEDRS. I have removed your link Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine because of that concern. What happens here will not be down to me but what is within the bounds of consensus, general sanctions and in my estimation any forthcoming announcements from the EMA who are on the case. (Apologies for my mis-spelling of the section title). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've left a message on WikiProject Medicine's talk page. X-Editor (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Mitch mcconnell

Do you like Mitch McConnell, just like fellow editor Baane247? Warrior4565666666 (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Warrior4565666666: No, why are you asking? X-Editor (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Why geometry?

Why geometry? Geometry is one of the most elegant fields in mathematics. It deals with visual shapes that we know from everyday life. Queen Animie (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? X-Editor (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Disability in Canada tagging for update

Hi, you place a tag on the article requesting that it be updated. Such a tag is fairly useless without accompanying explanation. Please post some detail on the article talk page about which content you believe is outdated. If you are aware of better or more recent sources please mention that too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Heads Up

An article you initiated, Balaji Srinivasan, is on the chopping block. Chisme (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chisme: Thanks for letting me know. I’m personally not sure if the article should be deleted or not. X-Editor (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve In Defense of Looting

Hello, X-Editor,

Thank you for creating In Defense of Looting.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page will benefit from having more references. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Corrected edits on Unite the Right rally

X-Editor, letting you know I made a few corrections to your recent edit of Unite the Right rally. Specifically, I made the following corrections:

1. Restored original WP:HN that had been removed;
2. Removed spurious citation acting as WP:HN;
3. Created named H:RTAG for shortened paragraph you added summarizing joint Bush statement condemning racism, etc. in Reactions > Political Responses; and
4. Added named H:RTAG to longer version of joint Bush statement in Reactions > President Trump's statements > Third statement.

Kimdorris (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea I accidentally removed another piece of text. I apologize. X-Editor (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I gotcha. Kimdorris (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Conspirituality for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conspirituality is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspirituality (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :)

Just wanted to say thanks for visually improving the information I added. I only seriously got into editing about a month ago and I literally just today got a decent understanding of the web link citations (I used to just copy-paste links into articles). So I really appreciate it :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts: You’re welcome! X-Editor (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Male infertility crisis

added a link pointing to Axios

The Book of Predictions

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my poor editting!

I really appreciate you coming behind me at times and fixing some of the poor tag and formatting that I've written. Thank you! Squatch347 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. X-Editor (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Patriot Party (political party)

Hello, X-Editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Patriot Party (political party), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report

I've somewhat IAR in removing your comment on Talk:Palmer Report, so if you restore it I understand (and won't remove it again). However, the Palmer Report's Twitter account (and followers) are watching that talk page and would probably love to go into a protracted discussion around whether Wikipedia and its editors can be sued (both have been in the past, by the way), and I really think it's best we keep that talk page focused on improving the article rather than feeding the Twitter chaos. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this a bot?

Not to be rude but, your username got my attention and made me assume you are a bot.CycoMa (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Nope, I am a human. X-Editor (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Megan Ming Francis moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Megan Ming Francis, is not suitable as written to remain published. It does not show notability according to WP:PROF. One book is not enough for notability. If there are other publications, please add them. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: How does the article not meet WP:PROF? Also, she is a Senior Democracy Fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Racial Justice Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a former research fellow at the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. These are several fellowships to notable organizations. Does that meet criteria 3? X-Editor (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: I did a quick Google News search and was able to find four independent reliable sources[14][15][16][17] discussing her. Would this be enough to meet criteria 1? X-Editor (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As a reviewer, I do not decide on notability --rather,Draft is just a screen, to predict whether it is likely that the community would consider the subject to be notable at an AfD discussion. The intention is to prevent an article from being rejected at afd, when it can be improved first.

The standards are not my own personal preference, but the ones the community uses in making decisions at WP:AFD, the deletion discussions. I work a good deal with articles on academic faculty, so I'm familiar with the ones for WP:PROF. The fellowships referrred to at WP:PROF are such honors as being a Fellow of the Royal Society, or the National Academy of Sciences, and a few of similar prestige.; not an award or appointment that is called a fellowship, because that's the term usuallly used for any graduate or postgraduate scholarship. The publication standard can be met by book or journal articles. For books, what is usually asked for is at least two books by major academic presses, which are well reviewed and widely held in libraries/ Her book, Civil Rights ... was published by Cambridge University Press, an extremely important academic publisher, and would certainly count as one of them/. Two others are mentioned that she is working on--if they are published by a comparable publisher, they would easily meet the standard when the appear. The expectation for journals depends on the subject, but it's usually its 2 or 3 papers each with over 100 citations in google scholar or equivalent. I see two papers with 65 and 41 -- this might do it in this area, especially because of the discussion in Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 31, Iss. 2 ], Art. 10 [18] where the editors say "In 2019, Megan Ming Francis published a path-breaking article" referring to The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding, and Movement Capture, . (interesting work, by the way, sas you can see by the detailed look I'm giving it)

What I suggest is that you add the 2 Most cited journal articles -- this one and Black politics and the neoliberal racial order, add a book review or two for the book, and let me know on my user talk p. and I'll take care of it as an admin DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the notability guidelines. I'll see what I can do. X-Editor (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wii TFA rerun

Hey, X-Editor. As a top contributor to the Wii article, I'm here to tell you that I'm making plans to rerun the Wii this November. If you are interested in writing a blurb or helping in another way, I can keep you updated. Panini!^🥪 12:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)\

I was already thinking about nominating this article for a TFA in November for the Wii's 15th anniversary, so thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was told its best to nominate it during October so I'll do it then. Panini!^🥪 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. X-Editor (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I got bored and impatient so I wrote one just now. You can view it at User:Panini!/sandbox6; feel free to make any changes. Panini!^🥪 14:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good job! I just made a few minor changes. X-Editor (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic

Hello, X-Editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi X-Editor! Thank you for your edits to Bitcoin. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Tesla, Inc. into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! X-Editor (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

PewDiePie and pescetarianism

Hi,

I'm just wondering what source you would consider as reliable? I'm a bit confused as to how Dexerto isn't reliable as they have a sizable online following, even surpassing some sources on the article in Twitter followers (i.e the Humanist). I know having a superior Twitter following isn't a guaranteed source for reliability, but I certainly don't think Dexerto is unreliable.

Thanks PokeFan10025 (talk)

@PokeFan10025: There hasn't been much discussion about Dexerto, but when I brought it up, the conclusion seemed to be that it is unreliable. If you want to start another discussion, feel free to post about Dexerto on WP:RSN. X-Editor (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: In fairness, the post is two years old and some of its criticisms, like the lack of a staff page, has since been created. Additionally, Finance Yahoo mentioned them in an article earlier this year as an 'industry leading site (in) award-winning esports, gaming and influencer coverage, including news, interviews, reviews, opinions, guides and tournament coverage' here: I presume Yahoo is reliable, so surely their mentioning of Dexerto is notable?

@PokeFan10025: The post I made about Dexerto is old, which is why I suggested you start a new discussion at WP:RSN. X-Editor (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: So it turns out a separate Dexerto discussion was posted last month and the consensus remains that it's unreliable. With that said, I also began looking into using direct YouTube links as a source, and unless I've understood incorrectly, it's okay to use provided that it's from an 'official' primary source. I admit that the YouTube link I posted isn't the best but he has mentioned his pescetarianism multiple times in videos before, so if I find one that is clear, concise and irrefutable, would that be acceptable to use as a source?

I would suggest going to the talk page of Pewdiepie's Wiki page to get consensus on if it's okay to use a primary source to back up that particular claim. X-Editor (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

September 2021

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kerry Chant‎. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: How is an article from The Independent a poor reference? X-Editor (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Katherine Maher

added a link pointing to Axios

The Daily Wire

added a link pointing to Axios

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Made for continuing to claim that Kerry Chant was referring to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) without any sources supporting such an extraordinary claim. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I literally said on the talk page that I would be fine with linking to the political term instead. I apologize for the misunderstanding and will not be involved in the discussion anymore, nor will I be involved in editing her article. Instead of blocking me from editing the entire site, maybe you could just block me from editing the article in question? All of my other edits have been good faith and productive. X-Editor (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not presently blocked. Closing request. SQL^{Query Me!} 04:53, 18 September 2021 (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.

That was another edit proposing a claim not backed by any sources, with the sources actually noting that Dr Chant was referring to the future COVID rules in NSW rather than some kind of political concept. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I'm also fine with not using the political term. I don't want to be involved in editing her article anymore and would be fine with her article not making mention of the incident. I just want to be able to edit the rest of this site, as I have not made any disruptive edits outside of her article. X-Editor (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution – second warning

You acknowledged here that you were aware of this. You did it again at the article Theresa Tam. You risk being blocked again if you continue to do this; attribution is a copyright requirement, as discussed at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jihan Abass moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jihan Abass, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hatchens: How many more independent reliable sources do I need and how does the article currently not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? X-Editor (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hatchens: I've added more sources and info and submitted the article for creation. X-Editor (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jihan Abass has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jihan Abass. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jihan Abass has been accepted

Jihan Abass, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Gab

Dear X-Editor, I’m not sure if you are responsible for the Gab Wiki. You are the reason free speech is dying. How can Gab be responsible for anything it’s users post? That is ridiculous. Gab is a platform, not big brother or almighty god. Users post at their own risk. Saying that they were responsible for that capital crap, or for anything else is 100% insane. Read the 1st amendment one of these days. It’s the only reason you get to do what you do, regardless of how you feel. Next time you want to edit anything on here please leave your personal feelings out of it. This site should only be facts, not human misinterpretation.

What I've written in that article is based on what reliable sources have to say about Gab. If there is anything specific in the article that you don't agree with, feel free to leave a comment on the talk page of the article here. Also, If you are about the facts, then you should know that the first amendment only applies to state actors. X-Editor (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for the article. Thanks you. Omomp (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Why? What problems are there with the article exactly? X-Editor (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Babylon Bee

You beat me to it, I was drafting up a series of "most shared headlines." Good job. Squatch347 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: Thanks, but are there any other headlines you drafted that I did not add? X-Editor (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I had grabbed a few that were the most interacted/shared. So the NBA wears lace collars, motorcyclist identifies as bicyclist, Florida recount wraps up. When I looked all of those had more engagement than similarly popular Onion articles. I was debating that as part of the context of the inclusion. I see the admin removed yours for "relevance." What do you think about responding to that? Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hi X-Editor, I am writing to follow up on my removal of your addition of content to Kelli Stavast, because there is a pending RfC on the Article Talk page about whether to include it. Per the responding to an RfC section of WP:RfC, please note it includes, Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to X-Editor for writing three new articles during the fifth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you so much! This is the first award I have ever received. I also recently created an article that I added to the Canada 10,000 Challenge this year. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! The first barnstar is always special. (Mine is here.) Keep up the good work! I try to give awards for CAN10k annually in November. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Improper Citations on Capitol Riot Article

Sorry to bother you, but I saw that you thanked me for my edit adding information to the Capitol riot article. I added an additional citation in a separate edit, one with many authors, and I had to write it myself, but it looks like I made a mistake. Could you fix the error? Bill Williams 00:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: Fixed the issue. X-Editor (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Bill Williams 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: No problem. X-Editor (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

False

Stop putting down conservatives just because they believe in stuff you don't this man literally has more support then your liberal arts friends either put the correct information on here or it will be hacked and fixed and you will be locked out 2600:1004:B150:7D6A:4992:2B59:AD65:B4B2 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Who is this man you are referring to and what information have I added that is incorrect? I also don't have any liberal arts friends. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did do Liberal Arts Mathematics in high school... I was terrible at math... Panini!^🥪 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Good Job!

		The Good Jb! Award
		Because your minor contributions to the Wii during its TFA run were so effective that you ran out and moved onto my user page. Panini!🥪 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Thanks! I appreciate all the work you've done on Wikipedia as well. X-Editor (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary is important

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: I apologize for not doing so more often. A lot of the time, I am more focused on my own editing than informing others of my editing. X-Editor (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary isn't really required, but it's very helpful and important—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 03:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: I know it isn't required, but thanks for letting me know anyways. X-Editor (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Level three warning for removal of content

For some reason twinkle isn't working so I'm giving you this by hand. We use opinionated material frequently and I note that this is attributed. And why aren't you using the talk page? Doug Weller talk 21:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was about to use the talk page. X-Editor (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You should have done that instead of deleting it. I notr that you've had problems with edit wine in the past. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Calm down. I'll explain myself after I restore the content I removed. X-Editor (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I apologize for my misinformed edits. I've added back all the content I removed. X-Editor (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that you have done that. Can I suggest that you not tell editors to calm down (I see I'm not the only one you've said this to). Besides the fact that I can't figure out why in the world you would have said that and it's a bit of an insult, I know that it can really infuriate people to be told to calm down. I was just amused. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The reason I said that is because you were sending me a lot of messages in a very short period of time, which was overwhelming for me. I apologize for what I said. X-Editor (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, I see that you have been warned about discretionary sanctions of post-1992 articles in the past year. Hillary Clinton's article is on a 24-hour BRD cycle that you violated yesterday. Do not violate it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it to the talk page. X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moms for Liberty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Williamson County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass Killings AFD

Saw your entry there. I agree with your assessment. This feels like a habitual white wash attempt by a few motivated editors. It does seem to have hit mainstream consciousness though so I expect it to be very busy.

PS, I loled about the comment earlier about your political bias.

Squatch347 (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: What comment about political bias are you referring to? X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the ones under the False section. Squatch347 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: What False section? X-Editor (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: I finally realized what you were referring to. That comment was hilarious. X-Editor (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

;-) Squatch347 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: lol. X-Editor (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Moms for Liberty

On 19 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moms for Liberty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the conservative organization Moms for Liberty wants a book about Galileo Galilei to be taught in a way that is more positive towards the Catholic Church, for balance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moms for Liberty. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moms for Liberty), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I am honoured to have this article I created be featured on the main page of Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for writing the article and bringing it to our attention, and hope you have a great day!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You're welcome! X-Editor (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

12,000

Hey, congrats!

This makes 12,000 edits exactly!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

MKuCR

Please, self-revert this. First, "repressions" (with a reference to Wheatcroft) is not in the article anymore, and it contradicts to Weathcroft's own opinion:

" This is simply wrong. The main point of my 1996 article was not to make easy overall moral judgments about the Nazis and the Soviets in general, but to try to look at the terror, repression and mass killing in a more objective manner. I wanted to unpack these terms of their different components and then to analyse their specifics to provide a basis for further serious work.3 Instead of using general words like 'terror', 'repression', and even 'holocaust' and 'Gulag' I proposed talking directly about specific things, about killings, exile, imprisonment, ..."( Europe-Asia Studies , Nov., 2006, Vol. 58, No. 7 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1141-1147)

Second, noone called MKuCR "Holocaust", but many people raise a concern that comparing Communist mass killings with the Holocaust is the Holocaust obfuscation. Please, remove this b/s from the lead, I would like to avoid conflicts. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I've removed it from the lede. X-Editor (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: No problem. X-Editor (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this, the problem is that the article is supposed to be a general discussion of Communism as a whole a la The Black Book of Communism, which is why Paul Siebert's calls to rely on country experts, the only way to fix the NPOV issue about the events and their summaries, has been rejected but the problem is not Siebert or anyone else but the article's structure that is wrong in reverse. This [the article's structure] is, in itself, a NPOV problem because majority of scholarly sources discuss each country separately.

• Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "Review. Reviewed Work: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy, Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.
• David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.

It is not sufficient that the country was nominally a Communist state. If they are discussed together, there must be a clear connection. According to Dallin (the father of modern Sovietology), not a random Wikipedian editor like me, even the authors of The Black Book of Communism did not provide a connection or explanation to lump them together. Yet, that is exactly what we do too in that article. The only possible topic is discussing not the events, for which we already have plenty of articles about them not individually but also in each country's history pages, but the theories about them as a grouping. Since some theories do the grouping, that is acceptable. Davide King (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: I didn't know relying on country experts was ruled out. Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I think we cannot write a NPOV article about it (especially C) because to fix NPOV, we must rely on country experts (majority) for A and genocide scholars (minority) for B, but the latter are totally ignored by the former, and their weight status is confirmed by the fact that one side (genocide) rely on other (country experts), while the other (genocide) acts in isolation or is ignored.1 Yet, by trying to fix NPOV issue this way, we engage in OR/SYNTH because country scholars write in a totally different context and as a result tell two very different stories; they give much more focus to societal context and background rather than Marx or communism, as is done by Rummel.

I do not know how one can look at genocide/mass killing scholarship and come out thinking that Communism is their main focus.2 There is also a difference between finding a correlation, which is perfectly in line for B, and acting as though those scholars treat Communism as a separate topic, when they discuss it (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) as part of mass killings in general, hence my proposal to discuss them at Mass killings in history (akin Genocides in history) rather than grouping them them by ideology, geography, language, regime type, whatever, if that is clearly not what majority of sources do; there is no academic work titled Communist Mass Killings, Communist mass killings are discussed, like any other categories, in general works about the topic. We rightly do not have an Ethnic mass killings as a separate category, which is a subtype, alongside Communist mass killings, of dispossessive mass killing (the other major category is coercive mass killing) according to Valentino's theory.3

Notes

1. I do not think that the fact they have a different scope is a good enough excuse to justify their lack of weight. Consider also that genocide scholars write in their own academic journals, rather than mainstream political science journals, hence are isolated (Verdeja 2012).

2. It is Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, not Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide under Communist Regimes; The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, not The Dark Side of Communism: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing; Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, not Purify and Destroy: The Communist Uses of Massacre and Genocide; and Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder, not Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Communist Mass Murders. Can one truly look at their own publisher's synopsis and tell me that Communism (by which I mean Communism as a whole, which is the article's current scope) is their main focus, and were not cherry picked and synthesized? They are for B, not A or C.

3. Straus 2007, p. 116:

"Valentino identifies two major types, each with three subtypes. The first major type is 'dispossessive mass killing,' which includes (1) 'communist mass killings' in which leaders seek to transform societies according to communist principles; (2) 'ethnic mass killings,' in which leaders forcibly remove an ethnic population; and (3) mass killing as leaders acquire and repopulate land. The second major type of mass killing is 'coercive mass killing,' which includes (1) killing in wars when leaders cannot defeat opponents using conventional means; (2) 'terrorist' mass killing when leaders use violence to force an opposing side to surrender; and (3) killing during the creation of empires when conquering leaders try to defeat resistance and intimidate future resistance."

Davide King (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 United States Capitol attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Criticism of Spotify

added a link pointing to Deadline

Spotify

added a link pointing to Deadline

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Megan Ming Francis

Hello, X-Editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Megan Ming Francis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see Talk:Employee monitoring software § Proposed merge of Bossware into Employee monitoring software. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated infoboxes

It seems like you're accidentally duplicating infoboxes as part of unrelated edits. Any idea what could be causing the issue? Firefangledfeathers 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the VisualEditor? X-Editor (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. Until you figure it out, as a stop-gap measure, could you review your contribs and look out for unexpectedly large kB additions? Firefangledfeathers 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The bug is fixed! Firefangledfeathers 03:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I already knew, but thanks for telling me anyways! X-Editor (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers 05:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The BLP discretionary sanctions warning that you got here also applies to Hillary Clinton. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem (2nd notice)

Your edit to Lia Thomas has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Firefangledfeathers 05:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I didn't know it was copyrighted material. Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry for sweeping up some good edits in the reversion. My intention was to re-do them after finishing up the templated warnings and notices here, but I see you're already restoring them. Please do be very careful about copyrighted content, including closely paraphrased content. Firefangledfeathers 05:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I'm not sure how to restore the content myself, but I can fix the references again. X-Editor (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		Bravery Barnstar.
		For your work on political and highly contentious articles, along with video game articles. Rlink2 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Thank you so much for this barnstar! This is probably the best and most rewarding one I've received so far. X-Editor (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Your lack of edit summaries

I've noticed that you almost never include an edit summary. You really should be writing them, especially on highly contentious pages. Not doing so, aside from being rude and unhelpful to your fellow editors, can give the impression that you're trying to hide the nature of your edits and raises the probability of reverts. Please see WP:ES for guidelines. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I really should be doing more edit summaries. X-Editor (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for the edit on the Project Information Literacy page!

Margymaclibrary (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem! X-Editor (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't expect to get a barnstar for those edits. X-Editor (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Florida 1557

Seems to relate to all grades.[19] Doug Weller talk 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That's one opinion from one website. Since this bill is especially controversial, I think we would need more sources than that. X-Editor (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I was just mentioning it because you'd edited it, that's all. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That's fine. Thanks for letting me know! X-Editor (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Files - Bhupesh Baghel's claimed "support" misread?

I reverted your edit because it seemed you misread the NDTV report. His response to the BJP members demanding tax breaks was to say - go ask the center to do it. Can hardly be seen as support, especially on such a controversial film If you have better sources, please add back. Hemantha (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for fixing the issue! X-Editor (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas

This person is not a woman. He has male genitalia and you need to include that in the description. 204.195.112.250 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with someone's genitalia? X-Editor (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Svalbard

Hello X-Editor,

The number was correct for the Svalbard, as we could see on the official website of Longyearbyen before an update of the site https://web.archive.org/web/20220308064341/https://www.lokalstyre.no/korona.525097.no.html. The hospital in Longyearbyen even stopped recording the positive tests https://www.lokalstyre.no/status-covid-19-paa-svalbard-uke-8.6510890-545533.html. A report (still online) shows 278 cases as of February 21 https://www.lokalstyre.no/status-covid-19-paa-svalbard-uke-7.6509534.html. Sami270 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for getting it wrong. The number just seemed a bit too high. X-Editor (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, there are territories where it is difficult to find figures. Sometimes authorities stop publishing figures or cease to be accurate. Sami270 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. X-Editor (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph Kramer (doctor)

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph Kramer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Content mirroring

Howdy! Thanks for your help working on Libs of TikTok and Taylor Lorenz. One thing I'll note is to be wary of mirroring content directly between the two articles as there is content in Libs of TikTok that is not suitable for the Lorenz bio. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've also mirrored content to The Washington Post. X-Editor (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure that this controversy merits a section in The Washington Post -- the content seems to be given WP:UNDUE weight as the controversy is largely around the Twitter account and the article author, not the newspaper (WP doesn't add a controversy section every time a publisher issues a statement about an article). You might consider removing that content for now and instead including it as a suggestion on the talk page for further discussion. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Us-Mexico border

John Stossel made a video about Wikipedia and in it he added a factual edit, which was removed then seems to have been brought back by you, but then removed by that same guy again a few day later. Just thought you might want to look into it or fix it and lock that page for awhile due to the video.

Thanks 96.3.233.66 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was actually Stossel. The problem the editor brought up was that it was a detention camp and not an internment camp. I would recommend starting a discussion on the talk page of that article. I did readd the information about Obama's internment camps here. X-Editor (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hello X-Editor. Are you familiar with the page Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing? It might be worth a read, if you have not taken a look already. I bring this up, not because I'm some expert in copyright myself, but I saw this edit you made and saw how similar it looked to the source text. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. Sorry if it looked to similar. X-Editor (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Pinchme123. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of concentration and internment camps, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. No RS has been provided which specifically calls anything prior to 2018 either a concentration or internment camp. Without such RS, I think expansion of the time period on this list is not acceptable. Pinchme123 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation (3rd notice)

Your edit to Libs of TikTok has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This in reference to this edit, which you then copied over to Taylor Lorenz. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak task force invitation

Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak, so I wanted to invite you to the new monkeypox outbreak task force, which I started from the WikiProject of current events. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating the the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOICE

If someone claimed Clinton did this, you need to make that clear especially if its a controversial claim involving a living person, per WP:VOICE. As discussed in the source, an official claimed that Clinton signed off not that Clinton had signed off. You've written the latter as if it were fact, when the source clearly states that the official contends Clinton signed off. I've since reverted your additions across multiple articles. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert immediately, because those articles are subject to Discretionary sanctions --- plus, the onus is on you to establish consensus for disputed content, not on me. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to say that it was Clinton's former campaign manager. BTW, why didn't you just correct my mistake instead of reverting? X-Editor (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It was not as minor error, X-Editor. If you're going to add content that is obviously controversial, the onus is on you to cross your Ts and dot your Is – not on someone else. I acknowledge the latest changes you've made, you've since used proper attribution – as the source even does. Also, perhaps check again this section on your talk page, and consider not reverting a revert of your edit, without discussion. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing out the mistake I made. X-Editor (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded a bit harsh, it's just a very important consideration to make (attribution) when adding content that is controversial, and obviously, edit warring helps nobody. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It's okay. I understand the fact that we need to make sure we don't get things wrong. X-Editor (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious error

X-Editor, it appears that in this edit [20], you have severely misread the ABC News source [21] you provided. You wrote that local police announced that they would stop cooperating with investigations. In fact, ABC News says that the claim of non-cooperation came from unnamed law enforcement sources, and that the local police did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ABC News quotes DPS as saying that local police have been cooperating, with a caveat about the chief of police not responded to a request for a follow-up interview. starship.paint (exalt) 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I apologize for the mistake. X-Editor (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Undid revision 1093521865 by Pdogtreefrog (talk) Did you read my edit reverting the content? Only one review really expresses this view and goes way off topic from the doc

My apologies I didn't realize there had been a review after I published and did miss the initial note. I would have definitely not republished the same version without some discussion - though I don't think there is a set of references available so far for me to add that here as a reaction or as a controversy section (which would be a more appropriate place anyway).

I agree only Jason Whitlock's review called out the disconnect directly or in a similar fashion as the additional context and reference I used to supplement that critique. However, The Catholic World Report and The Catholic Weekly reviews make a similar critique of the documentary lacking a Christian perspective on the gender identity question. Essentially references 29-32 along with Whitlock's all offer praise before making a critique of it's lack of a christian-based framing or in some way missing an opportunity to approach the topic in a way that is more aligned or beneficial to some Christian ideology. Ironically The Christian Post where he gave the interview I cited where he was admonishing the adoption of secular and academic positions over that of their faith is the only religious organizations review that didn't articulate some level of criticism due to a lack of Christian connotation - which should be a reliability issue were it not a reaction reference.

I'll take a look to see if there are any credible articles that connect the contradiction in any way that would be appropriate in an encyclopedic context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdogtreefrog (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. X-Editor (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of YouTube Vanced

The article YouTube Vanced has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The poor sourcing indicates a lack of notability. A few internet hits indicate it existed, but that's about it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment

X-Editor, I've been meaning to mention this to you for a while. I really appreciate that you take criticism/challenges to your edits so well. I know a few times I've reverted an edit you made and I've seen when other editors have done the same. You always seem to take it in good stride and are willing to open a talk page discussion instead of edit warring when you disagree. You are clearly willing to listen/be persuaded by the arguments made by others. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! Springee (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks for the nice and encouraging comment. Happy editing to you as well! X-Editor (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

What is your "not necessary" logic on the deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The section on the overturn doesn't have to feature the entire explanation from the supreme court regarding why they made the decision. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are here to summarize events, not provide full explanations. X-Editor (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Not my intent. The article spends a great deal of space analyzing the state decisis analysis, the viability of the fetus construct and the undue burden standard. All of those are now in the dustbin of history, along with the Dred Scot decision, Plessy v Ferguson and the Rubix cube. I will insert notes into each of those sections that refer back to the overruling authority of the recent opinion. That low-key enough for you? Avica1998 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

True, but nowhere in the article did it repeat verbatim such a large explanation from the supreme court or any court. X-Editor (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That was just from the first 8 pages! Its a 78 page opinion. I'll be concise. Avica1998 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

8 pages is still excessive. Try making it about one paragraph. X-Editor (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that the update should be 8 pages. The syllabus of the new opinion is 8 pages. The actual opinion is 76 pages. It is certainly more relevant to the article than a Politico story about a leak of a draft opinion, which is moot now and probably should be removed. A paragraph summarizing how that new opinion addresses the Casey Court's findings is succinct enough, but absent using actual language from the Court it opens things up to allegations of "opinion," "bias", etc. So, the Court's language can be confined to the notes section and can be selectively illustrative. In actuality, the aforementioned sections should be rewritten from a historical perspective and be about as brief as the update. But you know what happens if someone does that. Avica1998 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, just be sure to summarize. X-Editor (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks can be deceiving. The amount of verbatim quotes from the original Casey court in this article is staggering. There are two columns of Notes as is: one is solely from "The O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter plurality opinion section" and the other from the Dobbs opinion. I may revisit the "Upholding the "essential holding" in Roe," "Stare decisis analysis," "Viability of the fetus", "The undue burden standard" and "Key Judgment" sections at a later date. Avica1998 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverse racism

Greetings. I've removed the text you added to Reverse racism citing Dictionary.com. A dictionary like this is not an especially valuable source in an article that isn't specifically about a word or phrase. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "specifically about a word or phrase." What articles would qualify under that umbrella and how does the reverse racism article not? Would you also mind explaining why it is UNDUE? Would be nice if you could clarify these things. X-Editor (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The material you added was WP:UNDUE because the most authoritative sources on the topic do not focus on individual prejudice. Most Wikipedia articles, including Reverse racism, are about concepts, things, people, places, etc., not words or phrases, which are found in Category: words and phrases. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. X-Editor (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Honorable mention

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davide_King#Planned_Parenthood_v_Casey and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#Supreme_Court's_holdings_overturned

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey&oldid=1095538521#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey&oldid=1095355418#See_also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks much better. Thanks for shortening it. X-Editor (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there's an Italian editor who's lengthening it by trying to turn it into a discourse on abortion. you may want to revisit in the future. Avica1998 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Lede at Michael Shellenberger

Hi,

Look, I'm not going to revert the changes to the lede again because this is quickly becoming an edit war. I'm not objecting to your sourced additions to the page, and I'm not claiming WP:Ownership.

All that I am asking you to do is follow WP:BRD when it comes to the language in the article's lede. The language there has been discussed many times by multiple editors, and the language was agreed upon previously. Thus, it makes sense to discuss there before drastically changing specifically agreed upon language, especially once you've been reverted multiple times, again, per WP:BRD.

If you'd like to go to WP:NPOV/V, then be my guest, but I'm not asking you to remove sourced content, and I'm not reverting your sourced additions to the body of the article. I simply stated that these sections are ballooning quickly; however, that's not really the crux of the issue and the wording can be revised and edited at a later date, either by other users or through productive conversations on the article's talk page. Right now, I'm simply asking you to follow WP:BRD policy when it comes to the lede, rather than hashing out disagreements via editing diffs.

--Hobomok (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss on the talk page and go over the additions to the lede one by one. Sorry for edit warring. I won't take this to WP:NPOVN just yet. X-Editor (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and no problem at all, this system is imperfect and a lot can get lost in the chaos of revising. That said, I think it would make the most sense to revert the lede to its originally agreed upon state, and then we can all work from there. Does that make sense? I'm not going to do that, because I don't want to revert again, so I'll leave it up to you. From there we can work collaboratively, with other editors, to improve the lede. --Hobomok (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. I've reverted to lede back for now so we can discuss. X-Editor (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

BLPs

Trust me. It's a frustrating process to bring NPOV to the Donald Trump page. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Agreed, but I was actually partly wrong about what the reliable sources say on his remarks. X-Editor (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:COVID-19 Immunity passport

Hello, X-Editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:COVID-19 Immunity passport, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR

If I'm counting right, you just passed 3RR at the Lorenz article. I recommend a self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I’ll self-revert if you revert the edit yourself afterwards, the text added is mostly badly sourced and badly formatted. Actually, some of the info being added by the user now doesn’t seem too bad, but it makes sense to discuss on the talk first. X-Editor (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I did intend to redo the reversion. I have now done so. Sorry I messed up your latest "fixes" edit. I assume the changes were all to the content I removed. Thanks for the self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: You’re welcome. X-Editor (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content at List of people killed for being transgender

I disagree with your removal of cited content, and your subsequent reversion to remove it a second time. I have started a WP:BRD discussion at Talk:List of people killed for being transgender. I have pinged you in that discussion. This is a courtesy note in case you miss, or do not accept, pings. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for both restoring the content and for your participation in the discussion. I have responded cordially to you there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you. I am a little concerned about the number of comments on this page that are to do with possible edit warring. Is there any need for me to be concerned? Is there any help and advice that you feel would be useful to you? I'd far rather that no such comments appeared again and that you enjoy being a Wikipedian. The difficulty you face is that such comments will inevitably be acted upon by someone who might start to give you formal warnings that may lead to restrictions to your editing privileges. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've abandoned the latest edit war, so I don't think anything is going to happen to me from that. I think I should discuss more on talk pages instead to solve disputes. X-Editor (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are the way to go. This means that good has come out of our meeting. We all learn all the time. Thank you for being amenable to it. The best editors here have made some of the worst mistakes early on, so you are in great company 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If I can be of some help in the future, you know where to find me. The only thanks I ask for are to pay kindness forwards when you find someone else who may be having difficulties 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. X-Editor (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Kashmir Files. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Gamergate is under 1RR

You've reverted more than once. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: I apologize and I wasn't aware of that being the case. I'll keep that in mind from now on. X-Editor (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The alert for the 1RR is at the very top of the page. With the DS warning, also. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how I didn't notice, but I'll keep that in mind from now on. X-Editor (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit at What Is a Woman? looks like original research a pov misuse of the source

Sure, fair use can be appropriate, but adding it there without a source directly connecting it to the film, no. It was an inappropriate comment. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, the source says "Images posted to public profiles on social media are often considered "fair use," meaning that they can be reposted elsewhere without permission. There are various factors to consider, however. Instagram’s terms include an explanation of such factors, which include whether the content is transformed or used for commercial purposes, in which case it may not be deemed "fair use."" X-Editor (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My edit was reverted again anyways, but I don't really care. X-Editor (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take into account Doug Weller's warning, you're toeing the line with DS stuff and adding heavy POV. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Those other edits I made weren't even original research, since the article itself notes the fair use thing, but I decided not to readd it because it was undue. All of my edits were done in good faith and I have no intentions to POV push whatsoever. X-Editor (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller's comment was based on the incorrect claim that there's no source connecting it to the film. In fact, the very source used for this incident makes that connection. Izzy Borden (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's true. The Daily Dot article is clearly about the documentary because the title of the article is "Matt Walsh used trans people's Instagrams in his transphobic documentary—it's already sending hate their way". X-Editor (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Izzy Borden@Praxidicae@X-Editor I agree it wasn't OR, it was simply a pov misrepresentation of the source. The text two of you were trying to insert says which is allowed as fair use in some circumstances" and Izzy Borden even said in their edit summary "critical to avoid a libelous implication". The source goes on to say " which include whether the content is transformed or used for commercial purposes, in which case it may not be deemed “fair use.” Looks to me as though the content was used for commercial purposes. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Just looked at the talk page, hopefully this is settled now. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad the issue has been settled. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Don't Say Gay

Hello, X-Editor, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username JamesG5, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Don't Say Gay, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Say Gay.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|JamesG5}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JamesG5 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The Anarchists (documentary) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Anarchists (documentary), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  DIVINE  04:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Megan Ming Francis

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Megan Ming Francis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:_X-Editor Judekkan (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm too late to the discussion, but this is kinda ridiculous to be dragged to ANI over. I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of stress over now-resolved(?) edit warring. SWinxy (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy: It's okay. Thanks for your comment. X-Editor (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hello, non-free images used under a claim of "fair use" or "fair dealing" must justify their use in every instance. Therefore, you need to create a separate "Media data and Non-free use rationale" for File:Sad Puppies 3 logo.jpg when adding it to other articles explaining why the use is justified. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)