User talk:X-Editor: Difference between revisions

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]