User talk:XavierItzm/Archives/2021/June

This is an archive of past discussions about User:XavierItzm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Visa restrictions etc

Hi Xavier, the Ebola responses page is not intended to track things like visa restrictions, which are intended to protect the internal population of the country which imposes them. I think there must be hundreds of these in different countries by now.

It is intended to keep track of the manpower, medical expertise, and physical resources which are being directed into Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea in order to prevent the spread of the epidemic and to minimize the impact of the disease in West Africa. Robertpedley (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert, yes, thanks, I see you fixed it, appreciated!XavierItzm (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo

Knowing that WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, could you please explain to us why you keep publishing [1][2][3] a partial statement of a 14 year old without mentioning the opposing views published in the same article ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, many thanks for reaching out. The subtopic is "Muslim reactions", and the literal texts are direct quotes from the Newspaper of Record of France (according to Wikipedia). It is true that the article from the Newspaper of Record also contains other material; feel free to add as appropriate to other sections of the Charlie Hebdo massacre as appropriate.
Now, with regard to the article currently cited:
1. It is also cited on the French Wikipedia page, I.e., the French are Ok with it
2. It is from a blue-chip, gold-standard RS
3. It is consistent with material from other top-RS from France (also cited)
4. You keep deleting the whole thing. Please refrain from so doing. Thank you. 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source and there's no mention of it in the French Wikipedia page. In essence, you still haven't answered my question. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, me, but where do you get that the French wikipedia does not reference the Le Monde article?.
Currently it is citation N. 214:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html
https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attentat_contre_Charlie_Hebdo&oldid=110845330
Kindly stop denying the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The partial statement[4] of the 14 year old that you translated from French (Je n'ai aucune pitié pour lui) does not appear anywhere in the French wikipedia page. Once again, WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The text cited reflects accurately the issues raised by Le Monde and the article is cited by the French Wikipedia. Kindly stop denying this fact.
Besides, who's stopping you from adding anything you feel appropriate? Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from energy and time, nothing is stopping me from adding what I think is appropriate or correcting the words that you falsely attributed to a kid. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound like bad faith on your part. Here is what the kid said, according to Le Point, the second argest French magazine:
"Pourquoi ils continuent, madame, alors qu'on les avait déjà menacés ?"
The direct, grammatically correct translation is chilling. True, maybe the student's grammar is poor. That happens, especially in the banlieues. I'll give you that.

Brian Williams - Berlin Wall: last edit could use a look --

Hi, Xavier -- You might want to have another look at your last edit on the "Brian Williams -- Berlin Wall" section. It doesn't seem to be reading properly (or maybe I'm not understanding what's meant --) As follows: CBS wrote: "“I was at the Brandenburg Gate . . . " CBS was at the Brandenburg Gate?? And I may be missing something else, but the whole CBS addition seems mostly to restate the sentence above it. (You may have a reason for having added it I'm not getting --) Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like there was a typo! Thank you very much for fixing it! XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" on the Brian Williams' talk page

Hi, XavierItzm -- Have you read the guideline Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (a.k.a. WP:WL)? There's a lot of it going on over at the Talk:Brian Williams page. Among other actions characteristic of WP:WL is "[m]isinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." I have yet to allude to Wikilawyering to defend attacks on my positions on Brian Williams' Talk, but I thought you might be interested in the article. Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel says what it says

Please can you remove Israel from the designations table at ISIL as per discussion here and earlier discussion here. There is a difference between saying that a group is law breaking and saying it is terrorist. There was also no reference given for Iraq. Greg Kaye 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, you raise awesome points! I'll edit the article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams

Looks like not only do some not want it mentioned that the show's name has been changed but some don't want it mentioned that Williams wanted to replace Leno and Letterman. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm, there's a new, long article in Vanity Fair about Brian Williams, including liberal use of the "L-word." I thought you might be interested. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/nbc-news-brian-williams-scandal-comcast Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Bruiserid, I'll have a look! XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Shooting of Michael Brown, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some 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 be aware of WP:BRD you edited boldly (B) and were reverted (R), you need to take it to the talk page to discuss(D) the inclusion of the information you inserted, continuing to include this information will put you at risk of breeching WP:3RR which may lead to a block. Amortias (T)(C) 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. Please note WP:BRD reads "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter. It is I who first made an edit based on what the RS indicates, and got reverted without the other editor following procedure, namely opening up on the TP. It seems to me that I am the victim here. Thanks for your time and attention. XavierItzm (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I should add that from the beginning all my edits had a full rationale. The other guy didn't even bother to write any. She or he just went ahead and reverted without so much as a "hello". Nice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, XavierItzm. You have new messages at Amortias's talk page.
Message added 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amortias (T)(C) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Christina, Queen of Sweden

Thank you for trying to help and for putting one of my objections very cearly on the talk page in just one short text! Please also be aware that the claim that she had "affairs" with women is unsourced, as I see it. There is a reference to some pages that we do not have access to, and I don't think we'll find anything to substantiate that on those pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Selective reference?

I noticed your recent edit of the newly started article Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in which you added reference to an article titled: "Islamic State: What you need to know". Following other "Islamic State" titled references that you have presented I was wondering how you came across this title.

When I did a search on (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "need to know" I found that only a tiny proportion of content contained "Islamic State" in the title. You should also be aware that previous RfC discussions have agreed presentation as ISIL / Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. If you are interested I am sure that an editor such as Legacypac can find the exact reference for you.

Greg Kaye 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Rachel Dolezal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I notice you've added the same content five times. -- haminoon (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yay. The other warring editor does not get any sort of warning, nor is it explained why the other editor used a different pretense each time to delete the well sourced material. There's WP for you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Trans-racial

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Trans-racial. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Passing (racial identity). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Passing (racial identity) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- haminoon (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks

You replied to my comment on the article talk page but seem to have ignored the bit about quote marks. Quote marks are for direct quotations only. Putting paraphrased statements in quotemarks is a WP:BLP violations. I've had to fix up your edits several times now. -- haminoon (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous comment. I have never put inside quotations anything that was not literally quoted from a specific source, and I challenge you to cite any counterexamples. XavierItzm (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Umpqua Community College shooting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with User talk:Mandruss's characterisation of the events. As you can see, others were making the exact same point that the edits up to that point were egregiously biased. I invite anyone else to look into this and it will be found Mandruss is simply trying to undermine my edits. XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if 100 other editors also failed to assume good faith. It's still a violation of WP:AGF. You are also bordering on violation of WP:NPA, a Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP asks that users do not use sarcasm nor make aspersions on others, such as calling them "corrupt imbeciles." Here is what User:Mandruss wrote today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC):
"Therefore Wikipedia is a community of corrupt imbeciles. Thank you for that unique insight."
Let anyone who reads this page come to his own conclusions regarding User:Mandruss and his activities here on my user talk page. XavierItzm (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a total distortion of what was said, I don't think you're going to fool anyone but yourself. Continue this kind of behavior and we'll see where it gets you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to go to the record and read the entirety of User:Mandruss post of today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC), and verify that the text cited above within quotations is 100% accurate. Please evaluate User:Mandruss's actions accordingly. 10:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg

Would you add back the image on my behalf. Here is the removed code of the image. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're at least the third person he's tried. I'll revert any such edit, per this. I've already advised/suggested that he just include a link to the image in the RfC, and apparently he doesn't like that idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'll include it, but I don't like modifying someone else's OP. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I failed to notice until now that you already had a link at the start of the second paragraph. My mistake, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello George Ho, can you believe how incredibly arrogant on the part of the other person it is to come to my page and preemptively and without any signal from my part write on this page that he would delete this action that in no way I had singled I might or might not do? Disgusting, I say. XavierItzm (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

.... If you reinsert the photo, someone else will remove the image. However, doing it over and over would get both of you blocked per WP:3RR. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)

I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your claims of vandalism

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at November 2015 Paris attacks, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. LjL (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, your repeated putting of words into the voice of the WSJ that the WSJ never used is very questionable. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be, but it's not vandalism. Please watch your words before you get accused of personal attacks. Anyway, we don't quote sources, we paraphrase them in the way that best suits our articles. "Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing, and it doesn't' matter which exact term the source used. LjL (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User LjL wrote: ""Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing"
Perfect. Then we keep the accurate voice of the WSJ ref: "Islamic State." Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't, because it's not consistent with the rest of the article, and because we don't parrot what sources say, but we use our own words. Check WP:NOR which says that. Enough of this nonsense already. And, to go back to the original point, keep your vandalism accusations to yourself. LjL (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ never uses "ISIS" yet the quote states "The WSJ reported..." Very, very questionable to use the WSJ's voice to attribute something the WSJ never does. XavierItzm (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No-go areas article

Hey there. I just looked up the 'no-go areas' article on wikipedia, found it awfully lacking, and looked at the talkpage. What I found was a clique of biased Wikipedians blocking the addition of (your) useful information and sources to the article, regardless of what arguments or information they were presented. Well, since I am of the opinion the articles you (and another person) intended to add are valuable and useful to improving the quality of the article, I wish to inform you the most persistent of them has, since then, left Wikipedia altogether. You can improve the article now. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

About removing material from one's own talk page

Since you called my actions of removing a notice you sent from my own talk page "uncouth", I thought I would point out that per WP:REMOVED, that's perfectly acceptable, and in fact, in my edit summary, I specified that I was acknowledging the notice. I actually also pointed out that I had already received such a notice, which is logged, so you could (and some might argue, should) have checked the logs before sending me the identical notice again; I will refrain from calling your own action "uncouth" and merely consider it stemming from lack of knowldege of the sanctions system. Now that you know, feel free to remove this section from your talk page, too, if you want; there is no problem with that. LjL (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the No-go area page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Politicians

You may not be aware that companies and politicians pay people to edit. Supporters do it for free. Wikipedia is a big mouthpiece for movies, TV, porn stars, video games and politicians. You need to stand up against this. Some of the politicians' articles are campaign documents.Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pope Paschal II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

concours d'archevêques, d'évêques et de moines, il dédia et consacra ce fameux monastère [...] 6) Le 9 mars 1107. Le monastère de la Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre, arrondissement de Cosne) était un

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Are you incredibly biased, or incredibly thick? The citation, as reported in my edit note, was of someone saying "it appears to be". That is not verification of what it is. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

CNN disagrees with you, Kevin McE: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And as I have already stated in edit notes, a newspaper journalist can make opinionated assertions, encyclopaedic editors can't. There are authorities whose competence it is within, after due investigation, to determine whether this was a terrorist incident: subeditors at CNN are not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm anticipating infantile objections to this edit. Bet? Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) Democrat demanded that the Department of Homeland Security probe why Mateen was somehow able to clear a background check to hold a security officer position at a federal contractor. Writing in late June to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Tester pointed to "clear and troubling signs that Mateen's screening as an employee at G4S was inadequate." The was of particular concern given its work with DHS, that included a recent $234 million contract from DHS, involving in Customs and Border Protection operations along the southern border and aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with immigrant transfers. G4S contracted previously with the military, as well as the State, Justice and Energy Departments, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a G4S worker, he was able to secure a state security guard firearm license. Tester wrote,“As the investigations into this tragedy continue, it is imperative that we also ensure that depraved individuals like Mateen are properly vetted and barred from these sensitive posts." “It is clear that the screening procedures in place failed in this case. It is critically important that we all take the necessary steps to ensure we are keeping our nation safe by ensuring that individuals charged with the protection of others are suitable, stable, and capable of fulfilling their duties.” Tester asked Johnson to provide specific information about the background checks done on Mateen, both before he secured the G4S job and during the term of his employment. Tester wants to know how DHS screens its contractors. "Given the screening procedures provided by G4S, would Mateen have been eligible to work at a federal facility or operate federal equipment for DHS?" he inquired. Responding to Edward Snowden's NSA disclosures, during a time when Tester chaired the Senate's Subcommittee on Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce, he introduced his Security Clearance Oversight and Reform Enhancement (SCORE) Act which received Congressional approval. This removed a constraint that barred the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from utilizing existing resources within the $2 billion DHS revolving fund: They could then be used to investigate the integrity of such background checks.^[1] Activist (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Senator to DHS: How Did Omar Mateen Pass Employment Check with Federal Contractor, PJ Media, Bridget Johnson June 29, 2016. Retrieved 1 July 2016.

Mohammed Daleed and third country resettlement

Hi XavierItzm, I deleted your sentence about Mohammad Daleel from the third country resettlement page again. That is because Mohammed Daleel was an asylum seeker whose application was refused. Third country resettlement is something different. According to my knowledge only refugees (i.e. people who were already given refugee status) who are registered with the UNHCR can make use of third country resettlement. Please visit my talk page if you want to further discuss this. Many thanks, Michtrich (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Munich Shooting

Dear Sir/Madam!

Could You please help me? I saw that You added data concerning a man, who threw a bottle at the perpetrator. We have a disagreement over his name: should we insert it in the article or not. Please share Your oppinion on the talk page, Thomas Salbey section--Ltbuni (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've re-added that Africa info 3 times now EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

- - The user who posted this deleted the info even after I took it to TP for consensus and the subject was open. As of now, there is no consensus to delete on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. You should not re-add challenged info that's related to a BLP/BDP. But we're beyond that now. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on treating this as a BLP issue. The perp is dead. XavierItzm (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BDP. BLP is extended to recently dead people. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience. The only exception to BLP is for recently dead people, but the criteria for this exception is not at all presented on WP:BDP, and instead emphasis is made on "apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". The problem here is that the living relative who cited the fact now being published by the most important local paper, by the AP, and by AFP... is the father of the deceased. Thanks again, XavierItzm (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well we're currently !voting about it on the talk page so we'll see how that turns out. IMHO, this is borderline and a bit contentious given the politics surrounding the info (immigration, the Somali population in Milwaukee, etc.). BDP isn't just about relatives, but can be about the recently dead themselves if that info is contentious. But some folks agree with keeping it (meaning it's not blatantly something that needs removal) and others don't so the best thing now is the discussion and see what wider consensus thinks. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who created the complaint counted actual additions of additional WP:RS as "warring". XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who posted this deleted the info even after I took it to TP for consensus and the subject was open. As of now, there is no consensus to delete on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the actual thread over. Parsley Man (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is too funny. The complainant got blocked for a week (his third blockout), and his complaint against me did not go anywhere. XavierItzm (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My conduct has nothing to do with yours. You know, these insults of yours are seriously going to get you into trouble someday. Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm gets attacked by A1b2C3d4

You really want everyone to be Muslim, don't you, you racist xenophobe? A1b2C3d4 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Turns out that lovely user A1b2C3d4 was a sock puppet and got permanently banned in December 2016. Pathetic. XavierItzm (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, XavierItzm. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with creation of new article! {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:A Rape on Campus

Until there is consensus to mention a last name, do not mention it anywhere on Wikipedia, that includes talk pages. You can discuss the reasons why without mentioning the last name. - GB fan 01:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Amazing the lengths some will go to, to protect hoaxers! XavierItzm (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Immigration and crime in Germany

Maybe you want to have a look at this article? Some "activities" are going on there...--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. 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. Thank you.

What you write in your edit here is clearly not supported by the source you give. On the contrary, it is your WP:POV. If you think that media about the Syrian war misrepresents aspects about the war, please find WP:RS who exactly state this and use them as a source. Or better, collect several WP:RS irrespective of whether they contain your POV and describe all major opinions and sides of the matter. Thank you, LucLeTruc (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the Truc's rant by simply quoting National Public Radio (NPR)'s November 1, 2016 citation that she does not like: "Many here seem to be carrying on with grace and dignity, even enjoying mundane, simple pleasures — like the teenage girls and a 40-something man snapping selfies in front of a giant "I (Heart) Damascus" sculpture in a main square."^[1] If she does not like how the U.S. government-funded NPR WP:RS whitewashed the situation in Syria even as the government was killing 500,000 of its own citizens and taking Aleppo, maybe she should take it with government of the U.S.? XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure to whom your "she" refers. Wikipedia is simply not the place for your own opinion and subjective interpretation of sources (WP:NPOV). You are obliged to write what is in the source, not how you personally think about such a source or how you personally think about its content. Your sentence was simply and clearly in no way backed by the source you quote above which you used to source the removed sentence in the article.LucLeTruc (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Alison Meuse (1 November 2016). "The Damascus Paradox: Everyday Life In A Country Torn By War". NPR National Public Radio. Retrieved 5 November 2016. Many here seem to be carrying on with grace and dignity, even enjoying mundane, simple pleasures — like the teenage girls and a 40-something man snapping selfies in front of a giant "I (Heart) Damascus" sculpture in a main square.

Please correct your error

Hello. You falsely attributed to me the revert of content relating the opinion of Mr. Lee, former cybersecurity officer. That was not my edit. Please be very careful not to personalize your talk page discussion, and above all not to misrepresent other editors' words or edits. I'd appreciate it if you would strike that attribution to me and clarify the fact. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the edit reads that SPECIFICO deleted in its entirety an edit containing citations of a Fortune article that contains the opinion of Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America, using as reasoning for his edit: "This is weakly sourced and WP:UNDUE redundant commentary by non-experts on a technical matter". Per his request, I will clarify this on the relevant TP. Evidently SPECIFICO is in the wrong as he deleted an entire entry and two WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were referring to a previous edit in which another editor removed the same UNDUE content. The WP principle remains however that you should not personalize your discussion of content on talk and you should remain civil. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is a notice that's put on the talk pages of all editors who are active in the related articles. Not a comment on anything personal. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Xavieritzm, as i told you above about your additions to Syrian Civil War or during the dabates in burqa or Murder of Maria Ladenburger you need to stay closer to what is written in your sources and not interprete you own WP:POV into these sources as you did in Dublin Regulation. Stick to what is written in the sources and, even more important, try to collect different sources covering the aspects you want to write about and try to balance what they write. Happy editing, LucLeTruc (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a fellow who believes that the New York Times article entitled "Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany," which is all about the murder of Maria Ladenburger, and who is fully named in the article, somehow constitutes original research.^[1] Enough said. XavierItzm (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What you write here is in no way related to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I am talking about and I have explained this to you in considerable detail. Either you are not interested in trying to understand what I and quiet a bunch of other editors are trying to explain to you or your are willingly misinterpreting our arguments. Anyway, you are not allowed to put your WP:POV in Wikipedia articles by freely interpreting selected sources and (mis-)interpreting their content as you did multiple times in several articles and you will keep getting reverted If you continue to do so. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thank you for telling me about the things I am "not allowed" to do in Wikipedia articles. In all fairness, I would like to remind you that you are not allowed to fly an airplane unless you have a pilot's license, and you are not allowed to be the Chancellor of Germany unless you have been duly appointed to that position. I hope you find this information useful to you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

References

^ MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel's measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils "wherever legally possible,"

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For tireless work that improves the quality of the encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Keith Ellison

Several weeks ago you were involved in a content dispute over at the Keith Ellison article. I noticed the discussion today and I wanted to share my opinion that the arguments being raised against inclusion of the "controversial figures" material were meritless.

Also, although I see you appear to have taken it in stride, other editors aren't supposed to attack you or question your motives simply for bringing source material to the discussion.

Often you'll find editors who are strongly biased towards a particular individual or viewpoint, and thus when other editors attempt to add commentary that reflects unfavorably on that individual or viewpoint, the deeply biased editor may genuinely see it as an effort to make the article worse, not better.

Hence you get comments like "I get the impression though that you are not interested in developing that article, but merely in inserting negative comments about Ellison." Oftentimes, the other editor doesn't realize how deeply his own biases have compromised his ability to edit fairly and objectively. Get used to it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweden attack

You gotta enjoy the censorship and denial going on there. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more concerned about TompaDompa's actions at 2017 Stockholm attack. He seems dedicated to suppressing certain information about the attack being Islamic terrorism and such. Perhaps we should report him? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 shooting of Paris police officers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

London Bridge attack

Further to your revert, can I suggest you read the link you have relied upon? It does not say what you claim it does. Thanks. – Sigersson (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is clear that a witness says Butt was taken away by police following his acts in defense of the murder of Lee Rigby. It's all clear on the Beeb:^[1]

Khuram Butt called me a "murtad", which means traitor in Arabic, and accused me of being a government stooge when I confronted Anjem Choudary about him supporting terrorism. The police turned up and Anjem, Khuram Butt and two other men were escorted away. I am not surprised that Khuram Butt carried out the terrorist attack.

XavierItzm (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40167432

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the weirdest notice ever! The person who posted the above overlooked the following very short sequence of events, which are so remote from ever being an "edit war", as to be laughable. The sequence of events:

1. 9:30 13 June - I first added perfectly sourced WP:RS content
2. 10:43 13 June - Editor Jonathan A Jones objected, quite properly as my text had one error. He, however, blanked out the entirety of the edit, instead of changing the one or two words in error.
3. 16:48 19 June - I made the correction editor Jonathan A Jones had requested.
4. 17:44 19 June - The user ElKebbo reverted me and again blanked out the entirety of the WP:RS.
To boot, user ElKebbo quite absurdly left a note on edit warring on this page.
Interesting, to say the very least. XavierItzm (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you're right - I overlooked your edit. Sorry about that! ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I thank you ElKevbo for your prompt response. Have a great evening, XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool off

These kinds of comments, and others you have written, are entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. I realize you are upset because what seems obvious to you is not being covered. The problem with jumping the gun like you want to is in these cases (not necessarily this one) suspects are acquitted of all charges and techically no crime had been committed. Obviously, that doesn't look to be the outcome here but WP:BLP is important to uphold whether you like it or not. Wait for RS to substantiate the claim that they are indeed terrorists. Your personal opinion is not a source for Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are ignoring the WP:RS. Here is one major newspaper's headline for you: "One of the now dead terrorists featured guns on his Facebook account"^[1]. You may wish to ignore the WP:RS which call the terrorists, well, terrorists, but you can't make your wishes become fact. Sorry, TheGracefulSlick, I'm afraid you are well off-base. XavierItzm (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So you found a media source that calls them terrorists before the police (the actual experts and absolute authority on this matter) concluded their investigation? I am glad they were on the case!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I am beginning to question whether you are reading the same article and its documented WP:RS as I am. The press routinely calls the Barcelona terrorists: "jihadists" "terrorists" and "islamists." Go to the article and read the refs. XavierItzm (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you do not understand the media is not the absolute authority of an ongoing criminal investigation then there is no point in arguing. You may run into trouble with WP:BLP violations in the future, which is taken very seriously, but that is your choice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, TheGracefulSlick, it will be interesting if you can raise a successful WP:BLP complaint about 5 dead terrorists who mowed down 4 people in their black Audi and then stabbed to death a 63 y.o. woman before getting themselves killed by police. But please give it your very best shot! XavierItzm (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20170819/43670571815/uno-terroristas-abatidos-exhibia-armas-cuenta-facebook.html

3RR on Camp of the Saints

Your recent editing history at Camp of the Saints shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

2017 Parsons Green bombing

I notice you have been editing the page 2017 Parsons Green bombing in particular the section in claim of responsibility, I have hidden this information, as it is currently contentious to include it in the article. Please contribute to the discussion Talk:2017 Parsons Green bombing#Claim of responsibility, before continuing with the main page version of this section, as it is under discussion as to if it should even be included in the article. Sport and politics (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the TP says that as there are so many sources, you simply can't censor away this content. Too bad, for you. XavierItzm (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

XavierItzm/Archives/2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because for the next 6 weeks I am in a country where Wikipedia is blocked. When I previously attempted to contribute from that country using alternative means, I found out the IP address from which I logged in is blocked. I am able to post this physically in a country where Wikipedia is not blocked, but will return to the blocked country in a few hours, and will log in from the alternative means. XavierItzm (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I see no reason not to accept this request. Exemption granted for 6 weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, XavierItzm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in sources

May you please stop adding a quote every time you insert a source, especially when the content is already quoting the source (a double quote). WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE help explain why excessive quotations should never replace concise text; also, quotes in sources are for controversial material, disputed material, or books which cannot be read by every viewer. Since must of your edits focus on clustering sources, the quotes are not helpful. I assume you have continued this practice for some time and would appreciate if you could take the time to clean up recent edits. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PLRT: «provide insurance against failure of the chosen web archiving service» & «A quote also helps searching for other on-line versions of the source in the event that the original is discontinued.» Are you against WP:PLRT? XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You are quoting easy-to-find and replace, non-disputed material or newsy, partially translated quotations that do not belong in a neutrally-constructed encyclopedia. This is not the first time in the last few days that an editor needed to remove quotes. I am asking nicely before it becomes an issue and other actions need to be taken. It is a simple adjustment so I think you can manage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there is nothing wrong with following WP:PLRT. You are welcome to initiate a process to amend WP:PLRT, though XavierItzm (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Per WP:IRS:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Fox News has neither a reputation for fact-checking nor a reputation for accuracy. The Algemeiner moreso (or less so). If you believe either is a reliable source for facts, please argue your case at WP:RS/N instead of by edit-warring. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

XavierItzm/Archives/2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because for the next 8 weeks I will be in a country where Wikipedia is blocked. When I previously attempted to contribute from that country using alternative means, I found out the IP address from which I logged in is blocked. I am able to post this physically in a country where Wikipedia is not blocked, but will return to the blocking country in a few hours, and will log in from the alternative means. Please note this is my second request. My first request was dated 26 October 2017 and it was granted. Thanks in advance, XavierItzm (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Granted for three months. Happy travels! Yamla (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Graveyard

You have made your point at the AfD for the Political Graveyard website. Making it at the article and its talk page is both irrelevant and disruptive. We simply do not give lists of who cited who in articles - it is trivia and adds nothing to most articles. It is also no guarantee of reliability, by the way: as an example, plenty of people cite the Holocaust denier David Irving but that doesn't mean he is a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As a further aside, I think perhaps in future you should bear in mind that not every in AfD discussions sees the same content as you. I did mention a couple of examples there in my response to you but a further example, which has recently emerged, is a consequence of the European Union's GDPR legislation. Quite a few US-based websites have cut off access to people from the EU because they either cannot or choose not to comply. You mean well, I understand that, but it helps to appreciate the limitations and the purpose of AfD. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the lists of who cited whom is not as clear cut as you say. I just added to the AfD the example of the Thomas Aquinas and its section on the modern scholars who were influenced by him (and surely cited him). I took the Aquinas example as the first thing that occurred to me, but certainly there must be hundreds of analogous cases peppering Wikipedia. Now, with regard to my contribution of a few of the books, some of which are scholarly, that cite the Graveyard as a source, as well as newspaper/magazine articles, since it was deleted (which is fair, any editor is welcome to do that), I have a genuine interest in asking the relevant TP if the deletion obtains, and I do not think it is at all disruptive to ask the question on TP. Finally, I am not sure I understand the GDPR objection. As you can see, (see section immediately above) I am in a country that blocks Wikipedia. So I am using a VPN to bypass this restriction. As of this minute, the VPN is accessing the internet from Estonia. Estonia is a member of the EU. If you are in the EU and subject to the GDPR, you should be seeing the same stuff I am seeing. But frankly, I don't understand your point. Can you please clarify what you mean by your GDPR objection? Sitush, I thank you in advance. XavierItzm (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I should add that reverting content from TP's is not OK. Generally only libelous or similar material gets rollbacked (not reverted!), which must be done by a properly authorized editor. Please reconsider. XavierItzm (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not know everything and sometimes I am wrong but you're not dealing with a newbie here. I am well aware of WP:TPG, thank you, but your massive post had no relevance to improving the article and arguably was undue weight in its selection. Note that academics who think the site is a waste of space may choose just not to use it without saying why. You were swamping that page (and are now swamping the AfD) with a vast amount of unnecessary detail. It is almost as if you have some sort of vested interest in the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As for GDPR, my point was a general one. A lot of US-based websites are denying access to EU citizens. If you can get round that using a VPN then good for you but don't expect everyone else to do it. As for Gbooks, see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the close of the AfD? How does this comply with WP:TPG? Article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article. Nothing you say there is going to lead to a change. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rape in Germany. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What's funny about this one is that he had twice reverted when he posted this, so he was one step away himself from being blocked! Sigh, I guess.XavierItzm (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, XavierItzm. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomai incident.
Message added 19:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBig Xray 19:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, XavierItzm. You have new messages at Talk:Berdan River.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Query

Just curious, how did you happen to find this article? Also, you do realize that when content is disputed the onus is on the editor to gain consensus for it, correct? If anything, there is consensus at the talk page that the source is not reliable. Reintroducing content from an unreliable source is frowned upon—just saying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I edit an extremely wide-ranging assortment of topics on Wikipedia. Mass deletion of WP:RS is more like vandalism than like productive editing, by the way, so please refrain from such. XavierItzm (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You have things backwards. Consensus is required for inclusion, not exclusion. See WP:ONUS. Beyond that, there is a general agreement that this source is not reliable. And finally, calling edits vandalism when they are not is a personal attack, and repeating it can lead to a block. Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANDALISM and WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. nableezy - 16:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah. You got it backwards. It's not like each time a new source never before introduced to Wikipedia, consensus must be sought first. Destructive behaviour could lead to you being blocked. XavierItzm (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How about you actually read onus and stop characterizing a legitimate content dispute as vandalism? Or you could actually see yourself blocked for continuous personal attacks. Sound fair?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not sound right. Please engage in no actions that could result in you being blocked. XavierItzm (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are better off heeding your own advice. Take care.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. XavierItzm (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This editor ended up blocked indefinitely, for unrelated reasons, today. One truly does not know when will the hour strike, does one? Just this week I saw the same thing happen to someone else. The guy contributed (heavily) and labored and one day, boom!, he was blocked, with no previous warning given, and for reasons distant from his contributions. And to think the first editor was among the voices for the termination of the second. But the parcae came for one, and then for the other, perhaps when they least expected it. I'll wait for my turn. XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Was blocked indefinitely. Pleaded for mercy and has been allowed to come back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

August 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Sarah Jeong. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Baselessly accusing other editors of vandalism because your opinions differ from theirs is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia Openlydialectic (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This user vandalized my TP comments on this edit. I have left a warning that should such violations of WP:TPO continue, penalties could be due. XavierItzm (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The funny thing is, user Abecedare took the time to post this here, but not the time to see how long I have been a Wikipedia editor, and the likelihood that I am familiar with this "warning." The sad thing is, if I replied properly, that user has the power to get me blocked. So, no reply. XavierItzm (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you've been here such a long time, I am sure that it is also not necessary to point out that there is a "Show preview" button that will allow you to check your posts for typos and formatting errors before you make them. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No comment. XavierItzm (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Warren. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, XavierItzm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Marc Lamont Hill article

I see you separated the 2016 Farrakhan picture controversy from the current (2018) UN speech controversy. Makes sense. But would you not think that the 2016 controversy should come ahead of the later one? Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

American Politics editing

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 recently 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 any 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Their ridiculousness is beyond meta. They'll make much damage before they eat their own, though.XavierItzm (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Disappointed, E.M.Gregory, but must say as I saw the votes, I half expected the result to go as it went ("Although there were some opposed to the proposal, there were also others that felt it didn't go far enough. For now, this is probably a happy medium."). Note as well "Numerically, there is a clear consensus to delete. This means, in order to arrive at a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, the "keep" arguments would have to be significantly stronger in terms of our policies and guidelines". Is there a silent majority? The votes don't reflect it; probably, but just out there enjoying the myriad opportunities for living life, rather than driving agendas. No typos! XavierItzm (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Would be nice if you weighed in again on the talk page.Ebw343 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Warren

Re: [6]

Related content has been added and disputed. Discussion is underway but there is no consensus to include it yet. I previously removed it per the last sentence at WP:ONUS. Would you please self-revert and join the discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone else already took it out. Look, you cannot hold the bursting dam with one finger. When CBS and NBC have it, it's just out there. XavierItzm (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Killing of Susanna Feldman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See also WP:DE, WP:GAME and WP:RUNAWAY. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Like Laterthanyouthink said a couple of days later, "unnecessary and undeserved edit warning." I think his words fit quite perfectly here, so I preserve them for posterity. XavierItzm (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Illegal immigration to the United States and crime

Your recent editing history 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this editor is edit warring with several editors! My responses are on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

nonsense on wheels. Editor Snooganssnoogan has a serious WP:OWN problem with immigration to the U.S. and related articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- They also have multiple edit war warnings on their own user talk page. Baseless threats are themselves disruptive, and my first impression is that this notice may well qualify. I'm not going to even warn them for this (perhaps) first offence, but if they repeat it here please notify me. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Stringing

Is there any particular reason for the extra indent level here?

Hopefully not important in this discussion, but when the discussion goes many levels of indentation deep, wastage of even one level can make the strings harder to follow. Andrewa (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I always thought one must reply with a one-extra indentation, to indicate one is replying to the comment immediately above; whereas, if one does not indent, then the reply is to the last comment at the previous one-less indent. Is there a guide you could point me to? Would be happy to improve my indent etiquette. XavierItzm (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout is the guideline, but wp:stringing may be more helpful, and there are other pages to which these link. But you're exactly right, one more level is what is best, and what these all say, some more clearly than others. The edit in question added two. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Thank you! XavierItzm (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. When I search that quote, on the newspaper's website, or in a Proquest news archive search nothing comes up. I suspect that the author of the book muddled the quote. I am headed to the airport shortly, I'll be traveling for a week. When I get home, I will do more thorough searches you sent, or others you can think of and find the original article. I have less access remotely. Sorry I won't be able to help with this sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Bentham

Hi XavierItzm. I've reverted your addition to Jeremy Bentham. Additions to English WP must be in English if possible (and presumably likewise for Spanish WP) - WP:NONENG. But, even if you could find a source in English, sending someone a lock of hair (unless in a romantic context) does not seem to me to be important enough for inclusion. Wikiain (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikiain, please see TP. XavierItzm (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Cjhecking my twitter feed. Saw an indignant tweet. How dare you add text to Naomi Wolf! E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Plastic Pollution (very picky and unimportant)

Hi there,

On your most recent edit to plastic pollution, you said that "it is estimated globally, around 10% of beach litter consists of nurdles. Do you know exactly who made this estimation? I also moved what you wrote to a section about nurdles on types of plastic debris. Feel free to check that over and move it back, but there already was an existing section on nurdles and I thought it would be better to consolidate them,

Happy editing! Toad02 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons

Hi Xavier: as you were the original article creator, I wanted to invite you to help me approve this article in my Sandbox: [[7]]

Pursuant to WP:DELETE, we may restore the article to namespace once we've addressed the concerns expressed at the AfD. It may be a challenge to identify exactly what those concerns are, though, because -- as you know -- the hotly-contested AfD was closed with a one-line rationale that only cited to policy in general but did not identify how those policies actually applied. So we are flying blind to some extent. In any event, hopefully you can help me work on the article and we can tighten it up for publishing later. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:EDIT WARring

See Thinkprogress. Please do not edit war. When another editor disagrees with a change you have made, do not simply put it back in. Instead, use the WP:BRD process, and open up a Talk page discussion if you wish to press the point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The guy does a concealed edit, namely this here, where he writes as edit summary "Restoring unexplained deletion. Please use Talk page if you wish to discuss.", while deleting 625 bytes, a whole paragraph, and a WP:RS citation. This is quite underhanded, and then has the gall to come here and complain! I've left a warning on his page against edit warring. XavierItzm (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mirroring the wording of a comment that someone had previously left you, such as you did here, is sarcastic, and may fall within WP:CIVIL. Certainly, accusing someone of being "underhanded", is uncivil, and I would advise that you knock it off. You may also wish to read BRD properly, XavierItzm, as the Bold part was the adding of the text, initially, whilst the Removal was well and truly Ssilvers role. Therefore, your reverting of him to restore back the disputed text is the action that broke the cycle as the onus was on you to Discuss it. Cassianto^Talk 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is there room for discussing, when the other party shows its genuine colors by doing underhanded deletions that proclaim "Restoring unexplained deletion." while deleting boldly added material? I stand by my comments and lament your one-sided response. Truly sad, indeed! XavierItzm (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

They're "underhanded" because you don't agree with it. Nobody likes losing, that is obvious, but if you do insist on going about waving the BRD flag to justify edit warring, at least work out the cycle first. Cassianto^Talk 12:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, these are underhanded because the edit says deleted material is being restored, whereas in truth it was used as a device to delete well sourced, cited WP:RS. A pathetic episode on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Immanuel Christian School (Springfield).

User:Barkeep49 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please try to add categories to new pages you create.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Barkeep49}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: two categories have been added.XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for living and recently deceased people

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:31, 13 November 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

hi i am currently improving the norwegians of somali decent article

can you help in drafting a new lead for the somalis in norway article and can you publish it in the talk page first i think your previous lead was great and in my opinion their was no need for its removal would be great if you can make another lead for this artcle or i will work with your previous lead.--Kndnm64 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

i have just added your previous lead for the article titled somalis in Norway to the talk page I think it was a well written lead that should be in the main title, I will help out in improving the lead hopefully you can re add your lead to the article thanks so much I appreciate the work you have done--Kndnm64 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Deb (talk)

It should be pointed out that it as actually this user "Deb" who had to be reverted three times by three different users... just to show how unreasonable her warring against three reasonable editors was. Sad! XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christoph Heusgen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiegel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead summarizes article

The Wikipedia Manual Of Style says that the lead should summarize the major points of the article. The fact that allegations of abuse are well-covered in the body of the Max Landis article is why that information should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your kind intervention on William Sanders. Edwardx (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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 "China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you.

Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, XavierItzm. Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus reached on "China virus"

Hey XavierItzm, hope you're well. I just want you to know that the NPOV noticeboard discussion suddenly started several days ago and has now reached concensus. The consensus is that "China virus" is now allowed into the article, but none of the terms can be in the lead. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dia (supermarket chain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RTL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden/Reade photo

You have stepped in to continue the edit war reinserting the dual-photo illustration at Biden allegations. The longstanding photo was Reade alone. I'm diasappointed to see you continue the pre-emption of the talk page discussion by favoring the recent change that has yet to gain consensus. "Under discussion on talk" does not typically favor a proposed new version replacing one that's been stable for some time. Particularly when there are serious BLP concerns about the one you seem to prefer. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You were edit-warring, which is unbecoming, and I merely re-instated the status quo ex-ante.XavierItzm (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review the history. The single photo of Reese was the status quo until two ddays ago. The single photo was status quo for weeks before that. Please restore the status quo while the discussion is ongoing. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 09:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

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.

- MrX 🖋 17:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá

On 8 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation

I noticed a bunch of "Cite error: The named reference [whatever] was defined multiple times with different content" errors in this article. Looking back, it seems that they appeared with this edit by you. Please take a look at this vs. the previous version of the article and vs. the current version. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, thanks for bringing this to my attention. A first pass review of page history leads me to believe you are correct and it is my edit that introduced the errors. Not sure how that happened as I apparently just pasted back what the other guy had mass-deleted. I will fix this before I do any further Wikipedia edits in any other page, but alas!, not tonight. Possibly over the weekend. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Laurene Powell Jobs

added a link pointing to Axios

Mother Jones (magazine)

added a link pointing to Bloomberg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of L'Internaute

Hello XavierItzm,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged L'Internaute for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft version is looking a lot better, thanks. Deb (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Linternaute.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Linternaute.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: L'Internaute has been accepted

L'Internaute, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration on Killing of Dolal Idd

Thanks for your recent contribution to the Killing of Dolal Idd article. I have been trying ensure consistency of the sources cited, so you might have noticed that I edited some of your edits. If you disagree or question any of my edits, especially as they related to yours, please feel free to send me a message on my talk page or discuss it at the article. I'm just trying to be helpful and keep the article, which is of a controversial event, at a high standard. I hope this message doesn't come across as a warning or something like that, but rather as a friendly note. Have a nice day! :) Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Violence interruption

Regarding your edits, I urge you to discuss the provided sources at further length, because I was confused by the initial wording, hence my original reversion. Love of Corey (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Could you be a bit more specific on your edit summaries. This last edit[8] on Boulder shooting article, you put "exactly what the sources say". What do you mean? Both versions state the same thing, you just changed back the sentence structuring I changed. I made it two sentences because it was getting wordy, and you made it back into one long sentence but refer to what the sources are saying? If you are going to change things its not a problem but please try and have edit summaries that reflect the edit. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of poor sources and conduct in editing

Hello. Please be aware of the following:

Please avoid the use of bad or subpar sources. We need to use reliable sources, not bottom-of-the-barrel sources. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the New York Post nor the Washington Examiner is a high-quality source. The fact that a publication has not been formally deprecated does not make it acceptable.
When a source has been challenged, you must not restore it absent consensus. When challenged, the burden is on you, as the proponent of a source, to achieve consensus for inclusion. Edit-warring to re-insert a subpar source isn't acceptable conduct.
Please don't baselessly accuse other editors of vandalism (in edit summaries or anywhere else). That's not acceptable conduct either.

--Neutrality^talk 21:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware of Wikipedia policy WP:OVERCITE: "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources." The wanton repeated deletion of a second non-deprecated source without first seeking TP consensus could be interpreted as vandalism. Please seek TP consensus and do not edit war. XavierItzm (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality has been given notice of the discretionary sanctions which apply to the 3-consecutive (1, 2, 3) deletions of the same material Neutrality did today.XavierItzm (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

[1] Senator to DHS: How Did Omar Mateen Pass Employment Check with Federal Contractor, PJ Media, Bridget Johnson June 29, 2016. Retrieved 1 July 2016.

[2] Alison Meuse (1 November 2016). "The Damascus Paradox: Everyday Life In A Country Torn By War". NPR National Public Radio. Retrieved 5 November 2016. Many here seem to be carrying on with grace and dignity, even enjoying mundane, simple pleasures — like the teenage girls and a 40-something man snapping selfies in front of a giant "I (Heart) Damascus" sculpture in a main square.

[3] MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel's measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils "wherever legally possible,"

[4] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40167432

[5] ttp://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20170819/43670571815/uno-terroristas-abatidos-exhibia-armas-cuenta-facebook.html

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]