User talk:XZealous

Hello, I'm 2003 LN6. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fort Ancient have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Please do not change dates without a reason for doing so and a reliable source. 2003 LN 6 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks! XZealous (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from International Churches of Christ. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the rules of maintenance templates, and came to my conclusion that your template was inappropriately used. Those were the reasons I removed it, while also stating this on the talk page.

It is clear that the ICOC article page has become contentious, and actions should be taken when there is reasonable consensus on the talk page. According to WP:WTRMT (4) and (7)a discussion should have been initiated by you on the talk page before your tag, or even at least after it. That way editorial consensus could be made if the tag is appropriate or not.

I decided to remove it so we could come to consensus on the talk page first. I understand that this may also have been against procedure based on WP:WNTRMT.

Since the tag is back up, I will wait for consensus before appropriately removing it. I will wait for either

1) When the issue has been adequately addressed;

2) If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;

3) You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). XZealous (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, there's no requirement for there to be talk page discussion of an issue before a tag is placed; usually, the placement of a tag initiates it, as it did here. You removed the tag while that discussion is ongoing and without consensus to do so, which you shouldn't have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will note this in future. XZealous (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm TarnishedPath. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:International Churches of Christ that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Rude Tube. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notice! I will note in the future XZealous (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Remsense. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Central Asia. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying this. I guess I naturally assumed a red link needed to be delt with. I have now read the guidelines for red links. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on International Churches of Christ. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. TarnishedPath^talk 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. I was making some edits to the page, they got reverted, and opened a talk page discussion on it. I listened to the input from the reverts and attempted to adjust. I see they are reverted again and I will wait for consensus on the talk page. I really wish we could aim for collaboration on things like this instead of going straight to edit war accusations. Can we please move on from that? XZealous (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've made three reverts within 24 hours. On a less generous reading you've made 4 reverts just outside of 24 hours. Calm down. There is no rush with this stuff. TarnishedPath^talk 13:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I reverted anything. I saw @Cordless Larry reversion with comment, and I attempted to adjust accordingly. If I reverted improperly, it was not intentional. XZealous (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your changes so as not to get drawn into an edit war myself, XZealous. I've outlined my concerns on the talk page though. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your restoration as I think that the previous wording was better. Agreed that talk page discussion is best. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]