Archives

Archive 1

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a message here.

Thank you for your bold edits to the Breakthrough Institute page balancing up some of the unduly negative perspective of its author, who seems very resistive to changes being made.Quant analyst (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quant analyst: No problem. If you want to make any more bold edits yourself, then go right ahead. X-Editor (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your bold edits solider. You are always welcome back. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X-Editor,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 07:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment. I'll be sure to check out the Anarchism WikiProject. X-Editor (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." Please don't indiscriminately remove this but rather attribute it. Andrevan@ 13:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't clarify, but this comes from WP:RSP. X-Editor (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the text above from RSP. You should not be indiscriminately removing this. Andrevan@ 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I've attributed instead. X-Editor (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Andrevan@ 15:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do. Never consider retiring over 'content' disputes. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowed to retire whenever I want, but that doesn't mean I will retire. X-Editor (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Thanks. I think I overreacted a bit, so I've removed the retire part of my comment. X-Editor (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally. It's just a bunch of pages on a website. Andrevan@ 15:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't take it personally, but this website has caused me a lot of stress, so I'm done for now. X-Editor (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger's views on Wikipedia, is something you might want to read. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very much not happy at this report. I'd encourage you to not stick around when it's causing too much stress. I hope to see you someday some place else. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey X-editor, sad to see you go. You were one of the good ones. Masterhatch (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to sticking around. Hope you'll return one day BrigadierG (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Technoblade, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that deceased YouTuber Technoblade beat the video game Minecraft in hardcore mode using a racing-wheel controller? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Technoblade. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Technoblade), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,462 views (955.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. X-Editor (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, X-Editor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "COVID-19 Immunity passport".

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!} 16:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doug Weller talk 09:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello X-Editor,

How do I contact you to discuss changes that you made on a friends page?

Best,

JoLena2020 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content I removed was entirely unsourced. If you have sources to back up the content that i removed, feel free to edit the article. You don't need to contact me, we can just talk here. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text from the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory article:

"Since the early 2020s, conservatives and members of the far-right, mostly in the United States, have falsely accused LGBT people, as well as their allies and progressives in general, of using LGBT-positive education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming. These accusations have been widely dismissed as homophobic and transphobic, and are considered by experts to be baseless conspiracy theories or a moral panic."

If you change the wording again an admin should ban you for promoting the same conspiracy theory. What were you thinking? Miles RaleighWood (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the falsely characterize part that I removed in the LoTT article, I did so because the sources provided did not characterize LoTT's specific accusations as false, which would be OR. But I have no problem with the readding of the falsely characterize part. Still, don't threaten an admin ban over a simple mistake. I was never suggesting that the general conspiracy theory is false and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I have also never promoted the conspiracy theory in question. X-Editor (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know why you edited this out of the Matt Walsh page, "though he has said Pope Francis "disappointed me" as it was supported from a tweet that he made. Casint (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are generally considered to be unreliable and secondary sources are preferable. X-Editor (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for helping balance the NPOV in the Democratic Party article! Andre🚐 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: You're welcome and thanks for the barnstar! X-Editor (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Twitter, which you created, is at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Donald Trump and Twitter. Your contribution is welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a tendency to re-insert edits of yours that have been challenged by reversion. Please observe BRD. When your edits have merit, you should be able to achieve consensus on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is "an optional method of seeking consensus." and "is not mandated by Wikipedia policy". I don't have to observe BRD, especially if your edits involve reverting information from reliable sources like Jacobin. You were also blocked for edit warring yourself and there are many messages on your talk page saying that you engaged in edit warring, so it's hypocritical for you to lecture me about edit warring. When it comes to edit warring, we're even. X-Editor (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when choosing what to omit from a source as shown here [2] ---- with clarification (mine) added from the same source here [3] -- Thanks, Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t trying to cherrypick, I was simply trying to insert what I thought was the most important content from the reference. Because of this, unintentional cherrypicking is inevitable and there’s no need to message me here. Just fix the problem like you did and move on. X-Editor (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't give you a template. You clearly know it's inappropriate to try to ram disputed content into an article. You should also self-revert at the main article Fascism for the reason given in my edit summary. This is not even remotely controversial. It's discussed in every reputable source on the topic. Generalrelative (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Disputed by who? "It's discussed in every reputable source on the topic." then provide those sources, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I reverted your edit because you failed to provide any evidence to prove your argument. X-Editor (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for self-reverting. Second, disputed by whom? By me. That means that –– third –– the WP:ONUS is actually on you to persuade before re-adding the disputed material. That's policy, not a suggestion. And no, I haven't "failed" to provide anything; citations are not expected in edit summaries. But since you've (implicitly) asked, check out each of the very good sources cited in the "Fascism and capitalism" subsection, especially Sternhell, Sznajder and Ashéri, The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution p.7: The Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective without destroying the impetus of economic activity –– the profit motive, or its foundation –– private property, or its necessary framework –– the market economy. This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the Fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the law of markets. Generalrelative (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the WP:ONUS is actually on you to persuade before re-adding the disputed material." You didn't disprove that the ONUS isn't on you. You just proved that the ONUS is also on me, so I guess we're even. But most importantly, thank you for providing some citations to prove your argument. That's all I was asking for. X-Editor (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a really excellent discussion of this topic at Fascism and ideology#Capitalism. Perhaps some of that material could be productively incorporated into the Economics of fascism article, which right now gives the mater much less thorough treatment. Generalrelative (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. X-Editor (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We may disagree about how ONUS works but I'm not going to get hung up on it. Happy to be collaborating with you. Generalrelative (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ONUS is besides the point. I'd be happy to work on improving the Fascist economics article with content from the other article. X-Editor (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I really like how you imported content into the Economics of fascism lead. It really works well there. Generalrelative (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your encouragement. X-Editor (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed some apparent vandalism on Keffals and it seems show up first at this revision by you from August 25: [[4]]. Do you have any insight as to what might have happened? Zapafaz (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to vandalize. I might have accidentally removed some content and was unaware of doing so. I also might have been editing on mobile at the time, which could have made it easier for me to make a mistake and not be aware. X-Editor (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Looks like a good edit to me. The edit history is hard to follow because the edits right after X-Editor's had to be suppressed/oversighted/rev-deled (I don't know which). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. I was thinking I unintentionally messed up. But I'm glad I didn't. X-Editor (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of edits were oversighted. I believe the edits on the 25th were deadnaming and misgendering, and the one one the 29th had added a slur towards trans people (usually trans women). Nothing wrong with X's edit. SWinxy (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Considering what's happened, the vandalism is not surprising. X-Editor (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Transgender Trend shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You seem to have revived another editor's slow edit war, perhaps inadvertently. I would advise you to participate in the ongoing Talk discussion instead. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to discuss on the talk page. X-Editor (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being willing to discuss after reverting - and while not participating in an ongoing discussion - isn't really the best practice, and neither is pinging editors you believe might agree with you. And imitating a deceased editor isn't a valid reason for canvassing, either, no matter what your intentions might be. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the other editors because they were involved in the edit war and they were the only ones that had not commented, not because they agree with me. "imitating a deceased editor" what are you talking about? X-Editor (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A prominent editor in this topic area, listed among the deceased wikipedians, was known among other things for a propensity to ping editors known to agree with her. Also, since your ping explicitly says Pinging other editors that have disputed the "anti-trans" claim, it seems a bit late for you to second-guess what your own motivation had been - having recorded it and all. Newimpartial (talk)`

I had no idea of the deceased editor's existence. I forgot that I had left that message. I guess I was canvassing and I apologize for that. X-Editor (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We can all learn from our mistakes, and I respect those who do so better than I typically do. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've withdrawn myself from the discussion as I came in completely unprepared. X-Editor (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I questioned the "canvassing" interpretation here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I just wanted to be on the safe side when it comes to Wikipedia's guidelines. X-Editor (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to ping, just don't say it in a way that can be used against you 😄 Thanks for your contributions in this at times difficult topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thanks for the advice. X-Editor (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Illegal immigration to the United States 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 is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! I removed a sentence you recently added to the critique section of the article on liberalism. I felt that the addition regarding pejorative use of "liberal" in the US, while true and sourced, was not relevant in a section discussing critiques of liberalism in the foundational political sense, and that it did not have any relation to the preceding sentence in the paragraph. If you disagree, happy to work through it together here or on the article talk. Thatbox (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with adding the AFR citation, but can you add a small note that you added it and sign it? Andre🚐 03:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Add it to the article or the one I added to the talk discussion? X-Editor (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you did[5], thanks! Andre🚐 03:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. X-Editor (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You likely already know, but I've noticed some recent edits on Libs of TikTok w/o edit summaries, so a friendly reminder 😊

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or madam, this WP:ASPERSION that I am following you is out of bounds. Please read WP:TPG and if you have any concerns about me or my editing you may bring them to my talk page. But as a general matter, I'd advise you to consider whether you have any sound basis for your concerns before investing any time in them. You make some good edits and you make some bad edits, in my observation. I have reverted some, but by no means all, of the bad ones. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please respond to the argument I made on the talk page. Secondly, I'll discuss these concerns in greater detail in the future if I feel that I need to, but if your problem is that I did not provide any evidence, then I apologize for that. "You make some good edits and you make some bad edits" the same would apply to everyone editing WP. X-Editor (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that you significantly contributed to Vanced and I was wondering if would be interested in helping me out with a draft of a related subject: Draft:ReVanced (2). It's on a very early stage with parts copied from the Vanced article. If you're unable to help at this time there's no trouble at all. Thanks anyway –Daveout(talk) 22:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2034 Winter Olympics 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/2034 Winter Olympics 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 until the discussion has finished.

Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading you (and the page history) correctly, you "could not agree more" with this statement by Samcowie, in which they refer to editors with whom they disagree as perpetrators and state without apparent irony that If articles from the Times and the Telegraph are considered less reliable than Pink News, then there's no hope. Much of their statement isn't really compatible with WP's civility norms, and team-building among like-minded editors is not really conducive to a collaborative (encyclopaedia-building) project, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with their sentiment that the removal of the Telegraph investigation was biased. I do not endorse their uncivil behaviour. X-Editor (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit at Martha's Vineyard migrant crisis. I see you have also been editing Hunter Biden, and make edits about bias editing. I am currently engaged in a discussion at Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#HEAVILY biased article which you may have an opinion about. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Workers' Barnstar
		This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.
		this WikiAward was given to X-Editor by Cdjp1 (talk) on 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Cdjp1 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1 Thanks comrade! X-Editor (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-China propaganda. Founded, finds its reasons. Because of the outdated, politically failed doctrine <Maoismus>.

Diese Doktrin has become obsolete, has not justified itself. Requires processing , new understanding . For a more real attachment to the life of the country.195.244.167.108 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say? X-Editor (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed you had added the fact that Russia provides universal healthcare to the lead, which was a great addition. But I think you can modify the sentence further:

It ranks high in international measurements of standard of living, household income and education; having universal healthcare and a free university education. However, Russia ranks low in measurements of human rights, freedom of the press, economic freedom, and has high levels of perceived corruption. What do you think? Calesti (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change. X-Editor (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help. Calesti (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! X-Editor (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit, which I reverted, I seem unable to trace some of the content you transferred in the current version of either of the articles to which you credited it. Can you point me to where you might have obtained it? Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty blocker and Gender dysphoria. I might have made some changes by modifying the text a bit in the other articles, so I apologize for any confusion. X-Editor (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I can follow the history now. I have tried to make a more "surgical" edit. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like one of the reviews you removed was featured twice as if it were two separate reviews. X-Editor (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: As I pointed out in my edit revert, the first source does not say there is no evidence for the lab leak, it says there is no evidence for a modification of the virus in the lab, which is different, the second source only says there is no new evidence, and the third source acknowledges that the proximity between the lab and the outbreak is cited as evidence. Also, edit warring does not break any rules unless it goes over three reverts. X-Editor (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand, but feel free to present your interpretations on the Talk page. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions for this topic, so POV edit warring over key content in the lede seems highly problematic. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: I already presented my interpretations above. Please explain why I'm wrong. X-Editor (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and understand the source. I've added a quotation to help. Please make any further comment on the article Talk page so others can see; I will not respond here further. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the source better and realized I might be wrong, so I'm ending the discussion here. X-Editor (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your edits helping update/expand Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. I notice you've been repeatedly adding or restoring lengthy quotes in the article text, and I just wanted to let you know that WP:QUOTEFARMing is generally discouraged on Wikipedia. That's why I've been paraphrasing most new sources that come in. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate your edits as well. X-Editor (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse other editors of "lying", as you did in this edit summary. Such accusations, especially when presented without evidence or context. can be consider to be personal attacks, and can lead to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately took back the accusation after realizing I was wrong[6]. Regardless, I apologize for that. X-Editor (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article Aaron Maté is now under a 72-hour one-revert restriction for the next month (till 6 December), up from the normal 24-hour restriction in place for all Syrian Civil War articles. This message is being sent to all recent editors of that article, and implies no wrongdoing on your part.

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll change your mind & comeback. I don't like seeing any editor throwing in the towel, out of frustration. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to X-Editor for writing two articles related to Canadian children during the sixth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know you accidentally added the wrong link in this edit on Jack Sweeney, but I fixed it :) For reference, the link was Private Jets but should have been private jet. I saw you were using the VisualEditor, so I bet there was something weird in the interface that caused it. — W.andrea (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, X-Editor! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, X-Editor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Anarchists (documentary), 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) 02:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. When 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!} 02:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is a very long article, 217k bytes. I have no objection to the material you've been adding to it from other articles, but at some point I think you should be making a judgment about exactly how important that material is to a survey article, which by necessity must cover a lot of ground. Please think about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I tried to shorten the part about trans people to be more concise. X-Editor (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do to tighten the article up without losing essential information would be a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind, but I don't intend on adding anything else to the article anytime soon. X-Editor (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Rob Monster 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. The copyvio was fairly minor, otherwise I would have blocked your account. Please write your own content and don't copy from your sources at all. Again this is your final warning. — Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems generous to casually quote a "psychologist" on verge of losing his psychologist license. Is he notable as a psychologist? To me it seems the bulk of his notability comes from conservative commentary. –Vipz (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't lost his license yet, so I would wait for that to happen before we make that judgement. And even if he loses his license, he is still a notable conservative commentator. X-Editor (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're quoting a psychologist when we're quoting Peterson (i.e. Psychologist Jordan Peterson [...]), he should be a notable psychologist. His viewpoints should be significant (e.g. cited by other reliable sources in the field of psychology as a source for their work) within the field for due inclusion. If we're quoting a (conservative) media commentator, Peterson is unquestionably notable in this 'field' (very frequently cited/relied on by many other notable conservatives). I see the latter, but not the former. –Vipz (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've changed it to say he is a media commentator X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azahari Siti Nur Fatimah Hj 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/Azahari Siti Nur Fatimah Hj 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 until the discussion has finished.

Konstantina07 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website has turned into propaganda, I'm done.

— X-Editor

If you mean something like "gay propaganda", this might mean your personal attack on other Wikipedians in particular and Wikimedians in general (especially LGBT+ ones), and administrators forbid any such actions, X-Editor.
Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]