Jump to content

User talk:X1\

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display the Veteran Editor II Ribbon.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X1\ (talk | contribs) at 10:43, 28 May 2020 (→‎Strange edit summary on Adderall: 4~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User page: This is a Wikipedia user page, not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:X1%5C.
SEMI-RETIRED

It will be awhile before I will have the time to somewhat regularly edit.
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, X1\! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Question for administrator

Do I have a "Kick Me" sign on my back?

This[1][2][3][4][5] feels like I am being harassed. X1\ (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a request for administrative action, so I'm closing the helpme template. If there's a specific administrative task that you need to be performed in relation to the above edits, please feel free to reinstate the request with more details. Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of what is considered an "administrative task"? X1\ (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools lists the various additional things that administrators can do. Beyond that, we're just like every other editor here. Yunshui 雲水 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Guten Abend,

Do you understand that at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, per page restrictions outlined in Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you are not allowed to reinstate any edits that have been challenged? I have undone this and this revert of yours, which reinstated challenged [6][7] edits without talk page consensus and included violations of biographies of living persons policy either by citing court documents or stating Adam Schiff's unproved allegation in Wikipedia's voice.

Also, in this edit you reinstated challenged edits saying "I don't see consensus", when in fact, per page restrictions, you need consensus to reinstate challenged edits (see also WP:ONUS). Politrukki (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Politrukki: Why is this location the only place Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is used? Not used at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, for example? The creator of that Template also seemed to have been having some issues at the time of creation.
If you think that Template is valid, why did you put on my Talk page, and not at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections?
Why are you writing in German on English wp?
PS, you have a curious Username: have you seen fi:Politrukki (redirects to "Komissaari (puna-armeija)"; En redirect of Commissar)? X1\ (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normally there is no reason to link to an edit notice. Coffee logged the page restrictions and added proper editnotices to the article and talk page, but they apparently forgot to add an explanatory talk page notice, which is shown when someone is reading the talk page.
If you click an edit link at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you'll be reading instructions transcluded from Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and if you edit the talk page, you'll see longer instructions transcluded from Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
If you have read WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page, you have already noticed that an editor may be sanctioned if they (a) are aware of DS and (b) violate page restrictions outlined in an editnotice. In other words, the talk page notice is not mandatory. I have asked Coffee to add a talk page notice to the talk page, but they have not responded.
"If you think that Template is valid, why did you put on my Talk page, and not at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections?" – The talk page already has an editnotice. Even though any editor could also add {{American politics AE}} to the talk page as a notice, in order to avoid wikilawyering, it's better to leave it to an uninvolved administrator, and preferably to the administrator who imposed the restrictions.
"Why are you writing in German on English wp?" – For the same reason you did here?
"have you seen ..." – I have now. Interesting. And surprising. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Der Kommissar (see above), I see User:Coffee has been blocked / retired; in April. X1\ (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is follow-up, I will assume this string is moot, and ignore. X1\ (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2104 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
You have almost always provided a helpful edit summary with your contributions to mainspace. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate that! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing. Nothing like a good ES. Thank you for your vigilant contributions. X1\ (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback

The Wayback machine [8] can be very useful, although it doesnt always work. If you see a dead url just pop it in; if the Wayback machine's bots have crawled it, you will get a list of past "snapshots" of the page. If you have a choice of dates, it's usually best to stay closest/just before the retrieval date of the original Wikipedia citation as page content can get updated or change. Re the Tom Elliot article, Wayback didnt have anything at all for the weekly review city page, so it came up blank, but it was easy enough to find another ref for the information. You can also save urls you want to use as refs there, which is also very handy if you suspect a page might get taken down or changed. There are other archive sites, but Wayback has the reputation for being the most reliable. Curdle (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Update- Look at WP:DEADLINK. I've used Archive is before too Curdle (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice refresher

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

June 2019

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The banner at the top of this talk page is dishonest for an editor who is apparently trying to re-open old disputes.

If you have a specific issue, rather than just asking me whether I want to stir up trouble, be specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: see my comment at your talk page. X1\ (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening good faith editors who are fixing disruptive edits is not right and clearly violates AGF. Instead, warn the one making the disruptive edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert climate change

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 climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

custom message

Hi... if you don't know, that template is strictly FYI. It is part of the procedures for "DS", and is fully explained by clicking on the links in the template itself. I placed the same thing on my own page, and will try to make sure recent Climate crisis editors all have one. No biggie. Just a procedural thing. But be sure to read about DS if you don't already know. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)resol[reply]

ProPublica RfC

Hi X1\, it looks like you're focusing on the positive end of the reliability spectrum this time! Personally, I would do things a little bit differently here compared to the deprecation RfCs.

  1. The "Wikipedia proposals" (prop) RfC category is usually for proposals that have concrete effects. I tend to tag deprecation RfCs with this category, becuase implementing an edit filter is a concrete measure. However, the "generally reliable..." designation is more of an endorsement rather than a concrete action, and I wouldn't use the "Wikipedia proposals" category for RfCs that don't ask for something like deprecation or blacklisting. Ultimately, there are no strict guidelines for RfC categories, and it's up to you to decide which categories you want to use.
  2. After the moratorium RfC, I renamed the "generally reliable" designation to "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" in order to help address the concerns some editors had about the classification being too broad of an endorsement. If you can tighten the wording of the RfC a bit – from "generally reliable" to "generally reliable for news coverage" – that should address this issue. Also, "generally reliable..." RfCs tend to be less well-received than deprecation RfCs, since uncontroversial sources that don't run afoul of WP:RS are presumed to be usable.

Now that you're more familiar with starting RfCs, it would be great if you could also consider closing some RfCs once you feel comfortable enough to do so. The requests for closure noticeboard (WP:RFCL or WP:ANRFC) lists all of the elapsed RfCs that are waiting for uninvolved experienced editors to close. The closing instructions (WP:CLOSE) tell you everything you need to get started. There are many RfCs in the backlog, and by closing some of the ones you're not involved in, you help direct the attention of other closers to the RfCs you are involved in (which speeds up their closure). Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about closing discussions. — Newslinger talk 00:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger::
  1. checkY
  2. checkY
As I learn more and get more time I will attempt closing some RfCs. X1\ (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, X1\! — Newslinger talk 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: it looks like leaving a blank rfcid parameter in the {{rfc}} tag prevents the RfC from being added to the RfC categories. I've removed them to let Legobot process the tags. These RfCs should receive more attention after they're added to the categories and publicized through the feedback request service. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: wow, I never would have thought of that happening. I was attempting to make the process faster, as you may have guessed. I have so much to learn. X1\ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that was the first time I saw this issue and I didn't know it would happen, either. You're doing great! — Newslinger talk 22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NRA 4RR

Please self revert. You are at 4 reverts in the last 24hr. Springee (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Consolidated" organized crime shortcut

User talk:X1\/Consolidated ...

X1\ (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To do, for RS table

To do at Wikipedia:RSN for Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES listings

X1\ (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email notice

Hello, X1\. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit summary on Adderall

Information icon Hello, I'm Tartan357. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Adderall in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Specifically, you included the following edit summary:

website=www. → website ... selfnote: via May 5, 2020 "Trump's Vicious Attack Against Jimmy" Youtube.com/watch?v=QiUKCHTmSqA by way of May 5, 2020 "Jimmy Kimmel’s Quarantine Monologue – Murder Hornets, Beach Protests & Trump the Lyin' King" (Star Wars Day) Youtube.com/watch?v=215KYPGmR4M Jimmy Kimmel Live

This summary contains links to YouTube videos and references to topics that have nothing to do with your edit, in which you simply added “www” before a URL in a reference. This may be perceived as using Wikipedia for advertising, which is considered disruptive. — Tartan357  (Talk) 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, I make selfnotes so I can remember why I was there and why I made an edit. It is a way for me to remember my train-of-thought history. It is necessary for me as I edit sporadically, as is posted at my Talk page header Template:semi-retired. X1\ (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do Star Wars, Trump, or Jimmy Kimmel have to do with Adderall? — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters that much to you, a joke Kimmel made involved Adderall in that link. A similar joke has been made by others, and I don't know exactly why that kind of joke is popular; so I wanted to remember that so if I get the time to find out, or more RSs refer to it. X1\ (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I’ve put a lot of work into that page and monitor it frequently. Edit summaries that don’t describe the content of the edit make it difficult to see what changes were made and to monitor for vandalism. I would appreciate if you would keep to the community guidelines outlined in WP:SUMMARYNO. I actually received several thanks from other editors for reverting what was seen as vandalism on your part. The edit summaries are logs for the page, and you’ll likely run into misunderstandings like this in the future if you continue to use them for personal note keeping. Thanks. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tartan357 for supporting wp since you say you put a lot of work into that page. I also want to be constructive, for the wp:Reader by following the Five pillars. Website=www. → website is not vandalism, and there is no need to revert it. The vast majority of Readers only use the www (even if they don't know it), so the need to point out www has not been necessary for decades. All major search engines assume www when queried about a url combo of domain and one subdomain. Having www only wastes memory and the Reader's attention. That being said, if you want to rv it, fine. Please stop wasting my time on this trival edit. X1\ (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert if you want. It’s not vandalism. Like I said, it was a misunderstanding caused by your improper use of the edit summary field. I’m asking you to respect the community guidelines on edit summaries. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We now agree what I did was not vandalism. I now consider this discussion closed, and will delete it shortly per my Talk page process. X1\ (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always agreed that it was not vandalism. Just a misuse of the edit summary field. And I’ve sufficiently warned you. I would appreciate an acknowledgment that this was an inappropriate use of an edit summary. Regardless, it is always your right to delete comments from your talk page whenever you wish. Good night! — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what I did as an inappropriate use of an edit summary. Your ES was Undid dummy edit using edit summary for advertising; and I was not advertising, and as you appear to have now admitted, it was not a dummy edit. See my explanation above. X1\ (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t a dummy edit; like I’ve said over and over, it was a misunderstanding due to your nonsensical edit summary. You’re ignoring what I’m saying. I’m not complaining about anything other than your inappropriate use of the edit summary field. Just write summaries that summarize what you do, instead of linking to random YouTube videos and talking about Star Wars. Please familiarize yourself with the the guidelines on edit summaries. Your edit was seen as disruptive by other users based on the edit summary alone, and it’s an easy problem to avoid. Just use edit summaries to actually summarize your edits, and your edits won’t be mistaken for being malicious. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My ES was not nonsensical. You just apparently didn't understand it: selfnote, with the rationale detailed above. X1\ (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:X1%5C&oldid=959350865"