User talk:XeCyranium

Your thread has been archived

Hi XeCyranium! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikidata after page move, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison

I've re-started the Noticeboard for EW on James Madison with indirect reference to your comments to Freoh on the Talk page there if you could look at it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do! XeCyranium (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as 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.

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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as 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.

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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has welcomed you yet!

How very prolific you have been, old fish! So very glad you've joined us. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you, that's very kind of you to say. XeCyranium (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

René Lévesque

The RfC close version (that you have reverted twice already) is here with the rationale provided by the closer here. I would appreciate if you would self-revert rather than making additional reverts while launching accusations at other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the RFC closer specifically said there was no consensus for the wording apart from the mention of Canadian. If the version you'd been ~~edit warring~~ arguing for hadn't been in place during the close it just as easily would have not included Québécois, because again, there was no consensus for its inclusion. XeCyranium (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC closer said, In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. You are, in effect, reverting the close without formally challenging the close.

Also, you referred to STONEWALLING in your edit summary here - WP:STONEWALL describes repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, which doesn't describe the situation on the bio page in question AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The close didn't decide whether to delete or include it, it left it as is because in the closer's own words there's no consensus to include or delete. From my point of view, you're arguing in favour of something that has no consensus for and guidelines against but think that because it was the first edit after the RFC it is now set in stone and cannot be changed, despite the closer's own words to the contrary. If the RFC had found it must be included then it should be, but it didn't do that and endlessly reverting every edit for months on end single-handedly does not change that the RFC supports neither position. XeCyranium (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the stonewalling, I'm not sure how else to refer to you reverting dozens of edits for months on end to keep your newly made preferred version intact, and then saying that it is the "status quo" because you've refused to let anybody else's edits remain for more than a handful of minutes, including a citation bot's (which you did eventually undo). XeCyranium (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XeCranium: as stated above, this was never my "preferred version"; it was simply the version introduced as part of an RfC close. Nobody thinks that version was (or should be) set in stone, but it should be replaced only by a new version that has affirmative consensus. Your preferred version, which you reverted to three times in 24 hours, does not. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert to it three times, I'd try counting again if I were you. And again, when there's no consensus in favour of the sentence you desire and the majority of editor's on the page argue, with actual guidelines as a base, that it should be changed your insistence on forcing your own version is just tedious. XeCyranium (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I already stopped doing those types of edits after the first signal. You can stop now. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I removed the message. Before you left this one :P XeCyranium (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Loki (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is thread name. Thank you.) Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is requested

Hi. You've participated in discussions on the Joan of Arc talk page, and I've begun a consensus discussion there now. Can you offer your opinion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]