User talk:Xcuref1endx

Abi Ann

Hi Xcuref1endx! Could you please help me understand why you reverted my recent edit on Abi Ann? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just took a look at it again and now I am not sure, I must have misread the edit. Go ahead and revert it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm sorry for my revert at Talk:Yolandi Visser. You were right. I was wrong.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vikings, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Caution for removing properly sourced content, with a misleading edit summary to boot. Thomas.W ^talk 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a reason in the edit summary section. The content is not backed up by reliable secondary sources. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xcuref1endx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article

I noticed that you've deleted content from articles a number of times recently because it is "unnotable" or "not notable". Please be aware that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. There is no simple rule for what goes and what stays in an article, but if something is factual and well-sourced, then generally editing policy applies, so the suggestions there, at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, are a decent guide for article content that appears to have something wrong with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Started a section in the talk page. It is certainly not well-sourced, but I laid out my position there. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

On invoking policies without reading them

See Talk:Lindy West#Incorrect use of policy links as magic talismans. You're displaying a pattern of invoking policies without, apparently, having read them. It' snot just at Lindy West. Here you incorrectly cite WP:RUMOUR as a reason to delete a well-sourced and relevant fact. That policy is about not creating new articles whose subject is a future or speculative event. Whether something should be kept or removed from an article is covered under content policies, as is the case with many of the policies and guidelines you have incorrectly quoted.

I'd ask you to read anything you want to cite for justification. Just because it's called "WP:TRIVIA" doesn't mean it says "delete trivia!" Just because it's called WP:RUMOR, doesn't mean it says "delete rumors!" You are not reading. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Lindy West, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Please stop. Did you even note how many FAs cite primary sources for awards?

If you continue I'm going to seek a topic ban. Your behavior is Tendentious editing

Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lindy West. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

I hope it doesn't need to be said, but you are going to violate the WP:3RR and will almost certainly be blocked for that if you persist. You are deleting entire swaths of content over small quibbles, which I have already addressed. I read your actions in the most charitable light possible.

You were asked to discuss this at Talk:Lindy West. Do not revert again. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel like this also doesn't apply to you? I suggested many times that we bring in a third party perspective. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Or you could do something constructive instead of edit warring over the Women's Media Center Award. Expand the article with the dozens of sources that somebody else found for you. Giving proper coverage to other things would decrease the relative weight of this award that seems to be bothering you for some reason. No more edit warring from you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering that you are assuming bad faith on my part, continuing this discussion with you is pointless. I will start a RfC since you keep dodging it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith would be that you did in fact read the policies and guidelines you quoted, and are willfully disregarding them. I assumed you are editing in good faith, and somehow neglected to carefully read the policies you thought you were following.

Starting an RfC based on the idea that "nobody cares' about this Women's Media Center Award, after you have been shown coverage in the BBC, Seattle Times, Montreal News, would be disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk)!

An RFC has been created, feel free to state your case there. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* You didn't read Wikipedia:Requests for comment, did you? What have I been saying? I suggest reading it, carefully, and trying again. Your RfC is going to be rejected.

  You are putting yourself at risk of being accused of WP:POINTy editing, for pushing through an RfC to answer such a trivial question -- should we have one sentence that mentions an undisputed, verifiable fact? -- when your demand for multiple third party sources that consider this award worth mentioning was met. You wanted other sources, I gave you other sources. You should be happy. Note also that moving the goal post -- you have given a series of changing rationales for wanting to delete this content, first that it had only primary sources, then that it was "trivia", then that it was promotional, that you appear to be "Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised." See WP:ONEHANDGIVES.

  Please let this go, and make a constructive contribution. There are more than a dozen extensive reviews of the book Shrill in major publications. You could add paragraphs summarizing that. West has been criticzied many times by the National Review, the Daily Caller, Milo Yiannopoulos and Breitbart, etc. Why not summarize their criticisms to balance the article?

  An obvious WP:SNOW RfC does not reflect well on you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

you could fuck off -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)