User talk:Xcuref1endx/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Lucky 6.9 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to Dir en grey

Would you care to elaborate what makes this article "messy" or lacking in terms of grammar on its talk page? This would save other contributors the trouble of guessing what issues apparently need to be addressed. - Cyrus XIII 11:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well merited ...

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your excellent work in cleaning up (and out!) the Progressive Labor Party (United States) article.

Bob Avakian edit

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's telling that you find a NPOV perspective on Avakian to be unflattering to Avakian. This has been posted elsewhere, leave the conversation to the Avakian talk page. Secondary sources. Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 October

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 Alizée page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:American socialism

Hi, thanks for asking me. The basic difficulty is that a list of people in a template is necessarily unsupported by citations, so the danger of WP:OR (why don't we just call it "differences of opinion"?) is ever-present. One way this can be resolved - I guess it's the standard way, really - is to create a fully-cited list of people ("List of American socialists") in which every entry is bluelinked and supported by refs that prove a) they're notable b) they're known for being Socialists, i.e. at least one ref per person. Then the rule for the template is rather simple: each person must be properly on the list (present, bluelinked, cited). My tuppence worth. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Progressive Labor Party

I was going to run the gauntlet and insert some sourced detail into the PLP article (a really tendentiously "OWNed" article that I have pointedly avoided) and see that you've cleaned that mess out. Kudos for that. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Criticisms of Marxism 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. Spumuq (talq) 10:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Spumuq, I think accidentally posted this on my talk page. You were the one who was constantly attempting to include material which had not yet received consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Jose Sharks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Scott, Joel Ward and Antti Niemi. 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) 18:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

For the record:

Your recent editing history at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience 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.

Please read the talk page and seek consensus for any attempt to remove that long-standing consensus content. Also see the FAQ. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seek consensus? The Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience explicitly states it should not be included. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See my reply on the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does. It states it explicitly. Read what the arbitration committee decided upon, its on the top of that very talk page you reference. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me state it more clearly, because I can't expect you to read my mind. No, it doesn't say anything about it's inclusion in that list, nor does it say anything against documenting that RS have characterized it as such, and that's all the list does. Inclusion in the Pseudoscience article as an example of pseudoscience would be a different matter entirely, and wrong according to the Arbcom decision.

The Arbcom decision refers to how Wikipedia, in its voice, should NOT characterize it, and we do NOT characterize it as pseudoscience. We only document that it has been characterized as such. It's in a grey zone and we don't take a position on that. Some think it is, and some think it isn't. For the purposes of the list, we don't really care. We, as Wikipedia editors, do not characterize it as pseudoscience in the list, and that's what the Arbcom decision forbids us from doing. We follow that advice.

Now please close this thread. Any further discussion should happen at the list's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Criticisms of Marxism

Your recent editing history at Criticisms of Marxism 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary and actions don't make sense. Since when is a book against Marxism not tangentially relevant to the subject of Criticisms of Marxism? It is perfectly legitimate content in a See also section. To delete it is POV pushing and whitewashing.

Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That book is a catalog of crimes committed by totalitarian political regimes in the 20th century. It is not a book of criticism against Marxist theory. Including it in the section is POV pushing precisely because of that, it equates the actions of the totalitarian regimes to Marxist theory, the two are not the same thing. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is the second edit warring warning you posted on my talk page. One reversion does not constitute edit warring. The warnings would probably be more appropriate on your talk page.-Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I only restored that content once. You have deleted that See also link at least twice and been reverted by different editors. You have also deleted other material numerous times and been reverted by several other editors. Your edit warring is on several fronts. Your edits have been rejected by many, so they would all see YOU as the edit warrior.

You must change tactics and not edit war. Instead, follow the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and make a habit of doing so. Never try to force your will when it's been rejected by another editor. When a Bold edit of yours has been Reverted, you are not supposed to repeat your action. That second edit is the start of edit warring. You should start a Discussion on the talk page. BRD is not spelled BRB, or BRRD. There is only one R in it, and it's only three letters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, and can only go by what's written in the article:

• "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book written by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois,[1] and documents a history of repressions, both political and civilian, by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and artificial famines."

That sounds like a perfect See also link for an article about Criticisms of Marxism. We don't make a difference between Communism and Marxism in this type of situation. It's close enough to use. Regardless of your opinion, you must start a Discussion and seek a consensus to remove it. Go for it. Keep discussion on that talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is "we" when you say we don't differentiate between Marxism and Communism, because they are different things. You have a consensus there as well, or did you just make that up? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For a case like this, we (Wikipedia) don't parse the difference. It's close enough. In other situations we might well discuss differences. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So you made it up. "Close enough" seems to be a subjective measurement. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits on List of Programs Broadcast by Zindagi TV

I asked for your feedback because you have commented on Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV before. "TheRedPenOfDoom" has been getting into edit wars because he thinks that the sources are not VALID (emphasis mine). I have provided attribution and sources for each entry that I added to the wiki page.

I have explained my point of view on Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution and have invited him to reply. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#List_of_Programs_Broadcast_by_Zindagi. I have provided sources to fulfill WP:BURDEN requirements, but he has continued to revert my changes in this edit. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679163964&oldid=679157423. This is just one example of the numerous edits that he has reverted. He removed the references in previous edit and then removed the entries in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679170890&oldid=679169080 because according to him they are UNSOURCED (emphasis mine), when it was he who removed the references. There are numerous other edits if you look at the page history. Is there anything else that I should have done? I plan to seek dispute resolution if this continues. Manoflogan (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest doing a request for comment. Bring in uninvolved editors and develop a consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:13, 5 September 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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1