User talk:TheXuitts

so sick brah hey man thanks for your edits :) me and you have really done a good job on there --Aaron106 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha np TheXuitts (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you have sources before adding "falsely" to BLP material. While this addition may be true [1] (it is likely Rittenhouse isn't a licensed EMT), this addition was absolutely not supported by any source [2]. Your edit implies that Rittenhouse was lying about his stated intent (vs lying about credentials). Springee (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My b I thought it showed the clip where he confirmed on the stand that he lied TheXuitts (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey do you think we should show suge knight on the murder page, i know he may of orchestrated the killing but should we not just show the shooters instead --Aaron106 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it’s widely accepted he was an accomplice and it’s only under accused anyways. Keefe is mentioned under accused on Pac’s page so it makes sense TheXuitts (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also i got some new information. from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm-Kiz_Nrbk 8:23 Charli Baltimore says she and Biggie relationship's went to the next level where big flyed her over to LA during the filming of the TV Show "Martin" I checked the episode and it aired on September 23 1995. So 1995 has got to been the year --Aaron106 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough TheXuitts (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheXuitts: Hey i was thinking 1995 maybe isn't correct and a bit of a stretch. They definitely were together in 1996-1997 or (1997) either one of thoses I wouldn't mind if you changed back too --Aaron106 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got banned for a week apparently but I think 1996-1997 is more accurate TheXuitts (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheXuitts: You could change it now I think since you are unbanned :) --Aaron106 (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YesSimon is going on a changing spree again for Amir Muhammed. this is like 10 times now.. --Aaron106 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a protection request, until then keep changing it back TheXuitts (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s seriously frustrating because Billups’s life was almost ruined by false accusations and these dunces are trying to start it again. TheXuitts (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey as a B.I.G fan i suggest you watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quN-33HNFAw. Puffys bodyguard Gene Deal explains everything that went down that night :) --Aaron106 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheXuitts. Per your request to be notified about mistakes I thought I'd let you know your changes on this page have been reverted. You changed the political position section from "centre to centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing". When changing or adding claims you should always provide at least one supporting citation that supports your claim. The party is not currently stated to be left-wing anywhere on the page and no citations are provided that support this claim. If you want to change this you should provide at least one citation from a reliable source that explicitly calls the party left-wing. You also gave no justification for why you removed centre/centrism. Centre along with the claim for centre-left are both cited with sources in the "Ideology and platform" section of the page. Providing a brief description of your edit in the edit summary is also helpful and much appreciated by other edits and can be used to give your reasoning (however claims should still always be cited by at least one reliable source). Hope this helps and all the best. Helper201 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad TheXuitts (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the woman, but accuracy is important. She wasn't Jimmy Savile, and even his wikipedia article doesn't have the first sentence say what you added. One minor was involved and the words you added were discussed on talk. Based on Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 5#BRD discussion, you shouldn't add "pedophilia" as a motive to that page. Pedophilia as a motive isn't in sources on this topic. 195.226.154.85 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the most up-to-date discussion about using the term statutory rape at that article, see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 3#statutory child rape. The consensus is to continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the statutory rape article. There's also a discussion several years older than that one. 195.226.154.53 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to die on this hill but the Jimmy Savile argument you have is pretty weak as he was never convicted of child rape and Letourneau was. She was by definition a child rapist, but once again, I’m not dying on this hill and I have refrained from engaging in an edit war. TheXuitts (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about

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.

Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing in article space. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block is for disruptive editing, pblocking from article space because the addition of unsourced content about a living person at Murder of Ahmaud Arbery without even an edit summary was the last straw for me. No objection to any other admin lifting this block if this editor will commit to responding to and addressing complaints at their user talk. —valereee (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not adding an edit summary, and additional apologies if I did not respond to a previous warning. I’ll commit to responding to and address complaints on my user talk page, and I’d greatly appreciate if you were kind enough to lift the block. If not, I understand, and in that case I’d wait out my block. TheXuitts (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheXuitts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Will commit to responding to and addressing complaints at my user talk page from here on out, and will commit to always adding edit summaries from here on out. TheXuitts (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As the blocking admin is satisfied, I will remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't ask for a better request. :) —valereee (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I promise to work on it from here on out. TheXuitts (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, looks like it was. :) 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few months later, it's clear that TheXuitts was just saying what @331dot: needed to hear to get unblocked:

1. edit warring with no edit summary or discussion
2. edit warring with no edit summary or discussion
3. edit warring with no edit summary or discussion
4. edit warring with no edit summary or discussion

while ignoring an attempt at discussion on the talk page. Just saying. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HurricaneEdgar. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Scott Cawthon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 12:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t add a reference because it was mentioned in the body of the article. I’m not a beginner editor, don’t patronize me. TheXuitts (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I know you've done a lot of work on the Lil Peep article and I get the feeling you probably know more about music than me so thought you'd be the right person to come to for this. I imagine you probably have the article on your watchlist but if not a person just added a bunch of new genres to the article, and while it doesn't look like nonsense I'm not sure they all fit, but also not knowledgable enough to revert. Would appreciate if you could have a look at it whenever you got time if you're familiar with all the genres added. --TylerBurden (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nevermind, someone removed the genres I was more unsure about as I was writing this on your talk. Sorry for the ping lol. --TylerBurden (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it’s already been undone, but I'm flattered you'd come to me :) TheXuitts (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to stephanie adams listing her as a murderer popped up on my watchlist and not knowing the background I rolled it back thinking it must be some kind of blp vio. When I read the article I saw I was mistaken and rolled my rollback back. Please accept my apologies for the incorrect use of rollback.

Oh you’re good lol TheXuitts (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are located, but no one in the USA says the words "drug house". That is not a thing. Also, the cited source literally says "crack house". Stop changing it. You've done this multiple times. Wes sideman (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm located on Pluto. And yeah it actually is a common term, I changed it because it is a derogatory term. It's called a "crack house" on the CNN source but drug house on most. TheXuitts (talk) 8:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And you can't just insist on changing it unilaterally. Start a discussion and see what others think. You're in the wrong here. Wes sideman (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delivering a big warning for stuff you added last year.[3] I can see that most of his views were supported by a YouTube video which was removed later. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, many of the views you removed were well sourced from the 2020 biography. I can remove the views that were from the YouTube sources but keep the rest. TheXuitts (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before you undo any more, please specify to me which YouTube source you're referring to because most of those views in the Politics section are well-sourced. I can differentiate from there. TheXuitts (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheXuitts, I wanted to ask about you removing the image from the infobox of the Cr1TiKaL article. As far as I'm aware there is currently no wikipedia guideline or policies preventing from using any image in an infobox of a person as long as the description specifies how the particular image belongs to the subject of the article. In the description I have specified that it is White's YouTube logo, so unless there is a policy or guideline I'm missing I think it should remain as there is currently no licenced image of White available. Also I got the inspiration for adding the logo in the infobox from the videogamedunkey and Bill Wurtz articles, and it has not been removed there. Let me know what you think

PS: I added the image back before asking your permission because I got a message about the wikipedia policy where an image uploaded to wikipedia is deleted if it's not currently being used in an article and I didn't wanna go through the hassle of uploading the image again. Hope you understand. TheFightGame (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I think it's supposed to be an actual picture of the person, but I don't care enough to undo it again lol. TheXuitts (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, much praise to your edits to various crime articles. I was wondering if you could rewrite this sentence on the interrogation section on the Lee Harvey Oswald article that has been discussed on the talk page. The article says that Oswald told Holmes he was “working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs”. Looking though Harry Holmes testimony, especially on page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant where Oswald said he encountered the officer: ...as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions... Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). Based on this, the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section could be rewritten to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.” 213.107.86.165 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Star Mississippi 15:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do TheXuitts (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheXuitts

Thank you for creating

Thanks for the redirect!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just reaching out here to preempt any sort of edit war about the edit to XXXTentacion's Career section. I mention it in my edit summary, but just to further expand, I removed the sentence about X claiming the victim wasn't pregnant only from that section because it is a non-sequitur that holds no relevance to his career. It would only belong in that section if that was the only part of the article in which the arrest is mentioned. The only reason the arrest is mentioned at all in the section is because it directly affected an album release date. Had the album not been delayed there would be no mention of the arrest at all in "Career". There is no reason to include any information about the arrest that is not directly related to effects of the arrest on his career when the specifics of the arrest and X's reaction and response to them and all the other fallout has its own dedicated section in the article. Otherwise you're flirting with Undue Weight. --parqs (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I believe the alleged pregnancy should not be addressed in the career section as it is a point of controversy on its own and should be mentioned in the legal issues sections. TheXuitts (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I rewrote it again slightly, removing reference to the specific charges (because the two charges that led to the album delay were "aggravated battery of a pregnant victim" and "false imprisonment"), and then I also added a "See Below" hyperlink that should help alleviate some of your initial concerns. Hope this makes everyone happy haha. --parqs (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Glad we could agree TheXuitts (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FMSky,_personal_attacks,_WP:HOUNDING is where a discussion of this is at. This link [4] was mentioned in the discussion. Dream Focus 11:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your creation of

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death of Cooper Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme Court of Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the Murder of the Notorious B.I.G. page is broken which I just usually would just fix myself but a user had added information on there which is questionable. Can you have a look Aaron106 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nevermind somebody corrected it but it was just these revisions here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_the_Notorious_B.I.G.&diff=1096592007&oldid=1096467201, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_the_Notorious_B.I.G.&diff=1096592294&oldid=1096592007 --Aaron106 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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 09:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Me: The Album

Hello. Regarding this edit, please do not write all-caps rant-like instructions to other editors on articles per

MOS:ALBUM is also a guideline for how to lay out album articles, and we do not combine charts and critical reception. They are two different things placed at two different points of an article. Thank you. Ss112 01:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Jimmy Wopo

Hey there. Noticed you named a shooter on the Jimmy Wopo page, but can't find any sources to substantiate it. Do you have a source for that info? 412to512 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don’t recall doing that TheXuitts (talk) 5:04 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I could be reading it wrong. New to wikipedia's edit section. I have a screenshot but it won't allow me to upload it. Now that I'm looking at it again, it looks like maybe someone edited the name you had up to a different name? Not finding a source for either name though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 412to512 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Colin Campbell Ross into Gun Alley Murder. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Campbell Ross - infobox data

Hello,

I would like to thank you for restoring the infobox on the Colin Campbell Ross page. It was not my intention to erase it. However, I take responsibility for the inadvertence and apologise for the dismay and inconvenience it must undoubtedly have caused. As I said in my explanatory note, my chief intention was to correct the false impression that Ross was charged, tried and convicted of rape. You responded ‘Not what the source say[s]’.

The source you have cited is a report in Western Australia’s Daily News, dated 13 January 1922, which predates Ross’s trial (20-26 February 1922) by five weeks. It does not reference Ross’s trial or conviction because neither have occurred yet. The article reports the events of the previous day – 12 January – when Ross was arrested and charged with murder. While the report refers to the shocking nature of Tirtschke’s sexual assault, it makes clear the charge brought by the police is that exclusively of murder. Murder was the superior charge and carried the ultimate penalty, making it unnecessary to pursue the charge of rape.

At the inquest convened in Melbourne on 25-26 January 1922, the coroner confirmed the sole police charge, committing Ross to stand trial for the ‘wilful murder’ of Alma Tirtschke (not her rape). The original inquest documents recording the coroner’s committal are to be found in Victorian Public Record Series 30/P File 1922/92. I accept that in the US you may not have access to this record, but an online check of Melbourne newspapers (eg The Age, The Argus, The Herald) for the days following the dates I have provided, will confirm this information. For example, The Herald of 26 January 1922: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/243638955?searchTerm=Colin%20Ross%20murder%20charge

I am happy to have another attempt at amending the infobox information relating to Ross’s charge and conviction, but in the introduction to your talk page you indicated that you were open to feedback, so I thought I would allow you first option to do so. Thymebuf (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to extent my apologies because it appears you are correct. I'll change the page. Thank you for contacting me civilly. TheXuitts (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bell

Tried morphing your edit into the lede. Hope meets approval. A blatant "psychopath" insertion may lead undue weight to opinion and lack of impartiality. Kieronoldham (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notification

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

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Lee Rotatori and Thomas Freeman

As major contributor to the article about the Murders of Lee Rotatori and Thomas Freeman, I just wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion about these murders needing two separate articles and invite you to give your opinion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

AGF Rollback

I rolled back three edits on the Killing of Nawar al-Awlaki. I restored the Robert Gibbs quote since there is a discussion on the Talk Page regarding the quote. I may have rolled back edits unrelated to the quote that you might want to fix. Regarding the removal of the quote, please start with the discussion before removing it again. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Meyer

Curious as to why you've made significant deletions to this page. They were clearly selective, though they were well-sourced and cited and had existed on the page for a lengthy period of time. I'm going to roll them back but just wanted to give you an opportunity to defend your edits. Ecomichigan (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which deletions are you referring to? The only deletion I remember making was the paragraph about the allegations of sexual harassment in the NCC government since, to my recollection, the source didn't mention Meyer. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I made other deletions please specify. TheXuitts (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for there to be consensus first

If you're asking for there to be consensus on the Talk Page first for the "type" entry to state "homicide or death" instead of "homicide", let me remind you that for 14 years (2008 to 2022 to be specific), the infobox on that article never said "type: homicide". That oversimplification was unilaterally added by you in 2022, in keeping with your habit of changing infoboxes all over Wikipedia to "Attack Type" and then loading that field with the typecast label of your choice, which can involve classifying and typing things as this or that without necessarily considering the nuances that can arise from case to case. As you never got consensus to do that on the Anthony article in the first place (just like your moving the title from "Death of..." to "Killing of..."), and now say I should get consensus to fix your problematic assertion in Wikivoice that the type for that particular case can only be "homicide", there are only two ways forward on this dispute: Either we return to blanking the type field entirely (as it was all along from 2008 to 2022) as a "no consensus" item and insert a hidden comment directing users to a new Talk Page discussion to debate exactly what the entry should be for a "type" parameter, or we mutually accept that the compromise choice really is "homicide or death", which correctly includes both for the reader's information per the cited reliable sources and facts of this particular case (plus the existing prose in the lead). It's your call on choosing between agreed "no consensus" or an agreed compromise edit here, but for now I'm going to re-instate "homicide or death" until you think it over and let me know your response. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an attack by you on character rather than on actual principle or merit. TheXuitts (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A person's character is the sum total of their moral and ethical traits that distinguish themselves from others as an individual. I do not understand why you would believe there is anything in the comment I've written above that you perceive to be attacking your character; nothing of the sort was intended by me. This situation is a content dispute, with the above being a very direct way for me to address it as it's too much to put into an edit summary. As far as I know, your character is just as good as any of the other regular contributors on Wikipedia. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert BLP

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 articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

~~~~

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheXuitts. Thank you for your work on

page curation process

, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME issue on Killing of Jordan Neely

Hi. In these four edits ([5], [6], [7] [8]) you've named the accused perpetrator of the

WP:BLPCRIME? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The changes have already been reverted by myself and another editor, per the RfC which just closed today. Xan747 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at List of signature songs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bedivere (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? Genuine question TheXuitts (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be an admin to warn you. Stop your misbehaviour or I will report you Bedivere (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you essentially are admitting that you posed as an admin and made a fake warning post on my page because of a comment I made on an edit. This is borderline blackmail and way worse than anything I said about another user. TheXuitts (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blackmail. You called me a dictator, and then have gone on to say I have sent you blackmail etc.. I will report you. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for getting heated but threatening a user "or else" is blackmail. TheXuitts (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you to comply with Wikipedia policy is not "blackmail". Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case, you may be blocked from editing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name Inclusion, reopened

Hi! I just thought I'd let you know that the discussion on including the name of the killer has been reopened for comment (at Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name_Inclusion,_reopened) since you mentioned you wanted to be included in any further discussion a few days agos. Cheers, LoomCreek (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Neiltonks (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logged warning under

BLP contentious topic procedures

In my capacity as an unvinvolved administrator under the authority of

WP:AELOG/2023

:

On 5 May, you add added the name of a suspected criminal to

restricted

from part or all of the BLP topic area by any administrator without further warning.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the recent mishaps of mine. Nothing was ever malice or intentionally rule breaking and I'll be sure to be further aware going forward. TheXuitts (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are smearing the victim by naming her more than the rapist is named.

This is an obvious attempt to smear the victim and draw harrassment to her family. Her grave has been desecrated due to traffic driven by your comments. I will be checking this page daily from now on. I will give you ONE naming of my grandmother, otherwise I will edit the page daily until you die of old age or decide to leave my grandmother alone. She had no choice in being made a public figure when this man got drunk and decided to rape her while she lay in bed with a baby.

McGee CLAIMED it was a consensual affair. This is a common tactic of rapists like McGee, who attempt to blame the victim in order to avoid due process. The records are clear. The man had multiple opportunities to claim in court that it was consensual and never did it. That's because it was a ridiculous claim. My grandmother was in bed with my mother, a three month old baby, when McGee broke into her home, strangled her, and brutally raped her, and you are trying to blame her for his vile behavior. Grow up. Actual people have to live with the results of his predation, and you are doing your best to destroy their lives. I am a disabled veteran. I have nothing but time to dedicate to editing this page. You will not win this one. Find another family to harass. Chawkins68 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored according to someone’s feelings. I understand you have strong feelings of the subject but they do not determine what an encyclopedia says and doesn’t say. Wikipedia is based on sources, not what you personally believe to be true or false. Many believe that McGee is innocent, that is why the case is notable in the first place. It is very important and relevant to mention this in the article. Take it up with the talk page if you have an issue. I have no clue if you are telling the truth about being a relative of Hawkins, but if you are I hope you find peace one day. TheXuitts (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONSENSUS. Persistent disruptive editing can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Emma Grace Cole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 911.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song)

The article

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song) has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 07:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Deauthorized. ^(talk) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated violations of BLPCRIME

Hi TheXuitts,

You've been adding alleged names of crime victims and/or suspects to multiple articles, and several editors have objected to it. Please keep in mind that editors have to abide by

WP:BLPCRIME

and other relevant policies on personal data protection. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or court records and is cautious with identifying people, especially in the context of criminal activity.

You've re-added the suspect's name to

Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume, even though the removal was policy based. Please could you take a note that any further policy violations on your part will have to be discussed at ANI. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is there an "accused" section if we cannot list the accused? I understand we must be cautious, but the accused's name is not private and is publicly known. Though I will refrain from naming the accused from now on unless absolutely critical or with talk page consensus, I find the notion to be a bit unreasonable. TheXuitts (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for unreliable sourced edits

Hey, X. First off, thanks for reverting the edit I committed with unintentional consequences. On revision 1182399928, I added two criminalized people to the equation, referring to a platform's certain policy, but I see the sources on references weren't reliable enough. Sorry about that. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you referring to? TheXuitts (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the hateful conduct policy from Spotify because I thought Kodak Black was removed from the service's playlist so was Tay-K, XXXTentacion and that evil coward R. Kelly. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sylvia Likens

Can't all pertinent info. from both infoboxes be morphed into one? I like both, and there is important info. in both, but the respective infoboxes for "person" and "event" hold parameters unknown/not permitted on the other. Also, I didn't see this upon my screen with this particular edit. Kieronoldham (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes could technically be merged, but at that point we might as well just have both infoboxes. TheXuitts (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you good with just doing that? TheXuitts (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Trump nicknames page

I reverted your edits of the inclusion of the nickname “Beautiful Ted” as I do not believe it meets the 2021 RfC guidelines. If you’d like to discuss this further I made a section in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump#Reminder_of_2021_RfC_guidelines_for_nicknames

thanks. Dingers5Days (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Killing of Laken Riley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 911.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]