User talk:Xxx2023

0123456789!

Hello, I'm ItsCheck. An edit that you recently made to List of epidemics and pandemics seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is a solid consensus against saying that covid has ended. ItsCheck (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsCheck: You wrote me that I should practice editing!! Have you even read the edit summary, or you need your glasses to read properly! There are two different figures provided to the dates there: in the Major epidemics and pandemics section, 2020–present, meanwhile in Chronology section, 2019–2023. You have to make both at the same value, read well then revert and write me here to practice! Xxx2023 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Xxx2023,

There has been an agreement in the talk page already about the status of covid. Please check that out before replying to me again.

ItsCheck (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsCheck: What kind of an agreement you had? I still see disparity in values between two sections in one article, you can't even agree on the footnotes! You only argue about the first section, and the row is not in bold as the pandemic is considered ongoing. In addition, you can read the dates and notes in the second section for Chronology, indicating something totally different. There is incompetency at the highest level! Xxx2023 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Xxx2023,

There has already been a solid consensus in the article’s talk page. Please read that before responding. ItsCheck (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is

Hello, I'm KyleJoan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Angelina Jolie seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Also...

I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a

Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 04:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

Hi Xxx2023! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Angelina Jolie several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Angelina Jolie, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: You dare to name keeping my edits "preferred version"! Instead of undoing the whole new content, you could have easily mentioned which part seemed controversial, and was not included in the reference provided! Yet you chose to enforce your opinion to remove everything like you have the ultimate verdict! I would never ever revert others' cited contribution in the first place! NEVER! But in this platform, I have unfortunately only seen users like you who try to safeguard and dictate what should be included! Your argument is weak and subjective as my edit summary stated. Go argue with Jolie about what she wrote and father's reply, do not censor content here, this is not a communist platform where only a few can decide the final outcome. Xxx2023 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Xxx2023 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: ). Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: You have reverted my initial content thrice, then you crawled crying to admins to get me blocked! You do not want to be objective, that is obvious, as your argument is pure nonsense, content was "undue and problematically written", really? Insider is not reliable, ok! do you want me to add German-language refs, for instance, who discussed the same issue! You want to censor anything which summarizes her opinion in this matter and father's reply, why? I would wait until tomorrow to see your "neutral new version" about this topic, otherwise, I would retrieve my content! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Hi

(Also, please do not restore biographical content about living people if others have removed it with concerns about a lack of neutrality or verifiability. The requirement to establish a consensus before restoring the material is described by the

WP:BLPRESTORE section of the biographies of living persons policy.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@ToBeFree: I have simply outlined what she wrote about the situation and her father's reply per source. Have I added my personal opinion there? no! So why do you have to "educate" me about controversial content?

The other user, KyleJoan, removed the whole content for no real reason other than asking why adding it, so why not? add your neutral version then! They wanted me to be censored even though they removed my content thrice, and tagged my complaint about the platform, in which I should be prevented from adding content to those articles, so only god-like creatures like them should be entitled to this privilege. They also wanted a "neutral content", even though Jolie wrote that Gaza is turning to living hell, they were not my words! My main issue here is that this platform is misused by some people who only want to enforce their opinion regardless of objectivity. They claim the Insider is unreliable, yet the latter had linked to her post on Instagram! They plainly did not make the story up. Wikipedia became like a place where you either be a pet, or be blocked so the clan can write whatever they want, as Musk mentioned. Xxx2023 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: You blocked me two weeks, a period decided by yourself, for what exactly? because I violated arbitration decision based on what? for not being neutral, she wrote that and father replied! even Israel criticized Jolie for her comments, so I added the content to father's article, in order to avoid censorship, which you reverted for no reason! This is what happens when kids are allowed to have authority. Xxx2023 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A/I/PIA; see my explanations above). This is unrelated to any neutrality concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@ToBeFree: Not allowed to write about that topic at all, who made that decision in the first place? You would claim no neutrality! assess based on the content, not how many edits I have. Anyway, I am literally wasting my time here! Xxx2023 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your only warning; if you move a page disruptively again, as you did at Matt Doherty (Northern Irish footballer), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: only warning, jungleman! Redirects were discussed with User talk:Necrothesp, so do not come here to threaten me! I hope I will never read any notes from you any time soon! Xxx2023 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: You did not read my edit summary which clearly states that there are two players of the same name, yet you requested speedy deletion of the proper title of Sr. as mentioned in the sources provided with the new edits, which you also deleted for no reason! @Necrothesp: I apologize to you as I accused you of reverting blindly, as I did not know there is worse!! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are one editor. The 2022 discussion was commented on by many editors, and came to a clear consensus. If you want to overrule that discussion, start a new

WP:OWNership of the pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@AirshipJungleman29: I am one editor who did research and figured out that Sr. is a proper name as supported by new sources, compared to those "many" who argued about a title, and ended up with that call which is shared with his son obviously! my edits are there, hopefully someone with common sense other than me would support the new title as I am done here. Xxx2023 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So start a discussion. You could have started four in the time you've taken up making undiscussed page moves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: You are the one who removed my proper title back to that call! Why should I argue with others about something that was not even researched back in 2022, and I am the one who clarified the distinction two years later with proper citations in that pathetic looking article, which only had demeaning notes instead of sources! So no, there is huge incompetency here, I won't waste time to argue more, my edits added value, so nothing to discuss! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should I argue with others" because that is how Wikipedia works:

WP:CONSENSUS. However, I see from all of your other responses on this page that you are unable to have a discussion without insulting the other person's competence (or using punctuation that isn't an exclamation mark), so I think I'll leave that here. While we're on the subject of competence, though, I'll note that you have nominated Matt Doherty (Northern Irish footballer) for deletion because you think it is a duplicate of Matt Doherty (Northern Irish footballer). Competence! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Matt Doherty Sr. for speedy deletion so I kept it for you while re-adding the deleted sourced edits in the original! Why did you tag the redirect for speedy deletion in the first place? Tracking my previous discussions only to prove something would not do you any favor, cheap tactics, as you might be one of those "many" who could find a proper title back in 2022, smh! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not intelligible English, and thus I cannot reply to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: It is fine, each person might reach a certain level where they stop to comprehend, that was your case! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]