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)

No, I have no affiliation with Tulsi Gabbard or the Gabbard campaign. Besides that, 70% of my article edits are about topics unrelated to Tulsi Gabbard. Even if I were editing "near-exclusively" on a topic, that would still not be a valid reason for you to utter a suspicion about me having a conflict of interest. You failed to follow the WP:COI guideline by uttering this unwarranted suspicion, and I feel insulted by you. Xenagoras (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't casually throw around the term vandalism

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tulsi Gabbard, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. I have reverted your reversion of my edits to Tulsi Gabbard, which were constructive, neutral, and based on RS and consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NAMES (please feel free to check the citations yourself). It was the opposite of vandalism. Your reversion was unconstructive and therefore violates the WP:VANDAL policy. Please see the talk page on Tulsi Gabbard. There is an extensive explanation of the sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Samp4ngeles, you changed the name of living person in her biography, which is vandalism. Repeating this behavior will get you banned. Besides that, I did not remove templates from anywhere and I gave a valid reason for my change in my edit summary. Making false statement of fact is uncivil, please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 15:23, 30 October 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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I replied to you, but I'm not sure if you will get a notification

Hello Xenagoras,

I replied to you on the Statewide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries talk page about replacing the early primary polling chart, but I'm not sure if you'll be notified since you don't have a userpage and I'm not sure how to send a notification when that's the case. Anyways, just letting you know I replied and if you did get a notification can you let me know? Cheers, Leftist Commentary (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Leftist Commentary:, I receive notification when someone pings me. Open this section in editor to see how to make a ping. You enclose the name of the person to ping in double curly brackets and write ping| in front of the name.Xenagoras (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Hi Xenagoras. Since you have reverted most of my edits on Tulsi Gabbard today, I just want to make sure that you are aware of the article editing restrictions:

• You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
• If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.

Please let me know if you have any questions. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I have not violated the WP:1RR editing restriction when I reverted 5 of your today's 17 edits on Tulsi Gabbard, but you did. Xenagoras (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things: I did not say that violated 1RR. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't in subsequent edits. My edit that you linked is not a revert. It is a copy edit to ensure that the text is verifiable in the source. Do you object to that? - MrX 🖋 19:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding informing me about 1RR rule: I understand your point. Regarding your specific edit: I object to you replacing "earlier positions and supported LGBT rights" with ""anti-gay advocacy"" without preceding discussion on the article talk page. I will continue to discuss this content detail on the article talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD and WP:V are my guides. I trust you see that I have opened a discussion about this material on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 20:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)