User talk:Xenagoras

Welcome!

Hello, Xenagoras, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR

Hey Xenagoras, the Tulsi Gabbard page is under a WP:1RR restriction - meaning that you can't revert more than once in 24 hrs. I think you went past that when you restored material here and also here. I'm not going to report this because I think it's kind of a confusing rule, but you haven't explained your reasoning on the talk page, or even given an edit summary that acknowledges that you're restoring material that was reverted. Please do that before you restore more edits. Nblund ^talk 00:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that would be silly to report to 1RR. When I removed the clause you cited, I was asking for a reference because something seemed missing. Xenagoras did not revert any of my work, they completed their own. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I answered on the article's talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification

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-1932 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.

Template:Z33 Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Texas polls

Can you please,update the Texas Polls,many polls from Texas have been release since August.I would like to do it myself,but i don't have time to do so.Alhanuty (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alhanuty:I haven't seen any until today, and while I was writing today's Texas data onto the wiki page, someone else was faster in writing than me. Xenagoras (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1169784463804567552?s=20 https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1169620279947124736?s=20 https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1171480796009418754?s=20 https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1171653986962870273?s=20 https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1171784262355488769?s=20 https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1172003549728911360?s=20 https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1172246151250219009?s=20

Alhanuty (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP on talk pages, and WP:SPA editing

This edit to the talk page of Tulsi Gabbard is problematic: WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, and so making disparaging accusations about living people based on Tweets or Medium posts is not acceptable. Moreover, none of it has anything to do with Wikipedia policies. New York Mag is a generally accepted source, and whether you personally believe it is unfair to Gabbard isn't really relevant to the question of WP:DUE weight.

Also: your G10 nomination here is specious, as is your threatening that editor with a topic ban. I think that the material that that editor added to Tulsi Gabbard was excessive and that we should be more restrained in discussing her religious views, but there's nothing in that edit that would remotely warrant a topic ban.

I think you've made good contributions on maintaining the polling for 2020 primaries, and on related matters. But your editing around this issue has been disruptive. Please reign it in. Nblund ^talk 23:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the text you called "problematic". I was not aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages in the same way as to article pages (and causes self published content to become ineligible). The question motivating the comment you called "problematic" was: "Would a text plagiarized from a politically opposing private blog still carry the badge of reliability and WP:DUE weight?" Because if not, then the text may not serve as WP:RS.

I put as much explanation for my G10 nomination into the diff's summary as was place available. I have not threatened anybody, but I requested a topic ban because that author created an attack page to serve as tool for adding factually wrong vilifying text to a living person's existing article, which amounts to some of the worst WP:BLP violations.

Removing severe WP:BLP violations and preventing them from reoccurring is not "disruptive editing". Xenagoras (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

COI

Do you have an affiliation with Tulsi Gabbard and the Gabbard campaign? I ask because your edits have near-exclusively been about her and related controversies (which includes Hindu nationalism and 2020 primary polling). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)