User talk:Xcal68

Take it to the talk page. Don't just delete content that has citations for everything listed. Stop promoting a political agenda. We want ALL the information provided about this clearly fabricated fiasco. The apostolica (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation isn't the real problem with the edit, only part of it. You're also edit warring. See WP:3RR. You need to take it to the talk page before attempting to include that addition. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your help with the Amber MacArthur article!

NCSS (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you're welcome. I forget how I came about the article, but I saw you were having a hard time keeping something out that wasn't sourced. I thought I'd lend a hand. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Original Research

Hi, you removed my subsection on the Frank Vandersloot controversy on Fox News, citing it is WP:OR. That's not the case. I am merely retelling what is found in the secondary sources. I understand that some of the language could be cleaned to sound less like "original research." I don't want to undue your removal -- but could you read the secondary sources and edit it so that it is not original research to you? Thanks. -- --Daniel E Romero (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, the reason I threw out the OR flag is because some of the sources used didn't even mention FNC. I'll leave the editing to you... I don't feel that strongly about its inclusion/exclusion. If you want to revert me, I'll leave it alone. :) Xcal68 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind after a closer look. As it is, you're using a weak final source, citing a liberal shill. Find a real source to tie it up with. If you can't, contemplate why you can't. Meaning, it will then clearly not belong. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why you deleted my additions under Rush Limbaugh inaccuracies

Hi, can you help me understand why you removed my additions under the Rush Limbaugh page. You cited "original research" as a reason. I listed ratings by fact checking organizations, which were their own summary pages. That isn't original research. Furthermore, those entities are less partisan than any other source listed under the claims of inaccuracy AND their sole purpose is to fact check politicians and pundits' comments for accuracy. I can't understand why you would be deleting information from them. Please explain. Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also created a section on the talk page of Limbaugh's page re this topic. Thanks. Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You started with your own premise and then sought out "proof". You need a WP:RS saying it. It can't be your research. For example, factcheck.org is not a news source. You linked to their summary page which isn't actually reporting something. Find an actual news source. - Xcal68 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I summarized their ratings. I offered an alternative on the talk page.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem! You summarized it. It needs a RS doing it. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Conservative/Conservatism tag on Fluke article was relation of contents (coatrack to "war on women", first amendment, setup for 2012 election, etc.)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undo my revert if you want. I'll not dispute it. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wouldn't have without talking first.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]