User talk:Xinheart

Welcome!

Hello, Xinheart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xinheart, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! Xinheart, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been noted as an edit warrior on Gog and Magog

Your recent editing history at Gog and Magog 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.168 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and Magog

Hello, your edit here isn't fully sourced: ["comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka)."], and could you list the names of scholars who support figures Gog and Magog comparable to figures Koka and Vikoka in your edit [A handful of early 20th century scholars] such as.....etc. [noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures] etc. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on Gog and Magog. As I informed you in the edit summary, the ideas you put forward are not current mainstream scholarship. If you want to follow this up please do so through the proper content dispute forums.PiCo (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long discussion in the TP and you bypass the decisions and conclusions there. Xinheart (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew from the discussion on Talk because of the incipient personal conflict between myself and another user. The discussion on talk failed to address the substance of the problem, which is that the idea that Gog and Magog are in some way related to the Hindu demons Koka and Vikoka. This idea is not mentioned by any current scholarly source from the field of biblical studies, not even to e dismissed. It has no place in the article. If you insist on trying to insert it, I'll have no option but to go to an appropriate forum. For the last tie, please stop edit warring or provide references for the edit. (No, René Guénon isn't acceptable - he's not current, he lacks qualifications, and most of all, his idea hasn't won any following.)PiCo (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on the Talk page of Gog and Magog as a preliminary step towards DRN (stands for [Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]). I've stated, as precisely as possible, why I believe your paragraph should not be in the article. You might like to state why you believe it should be. After that, given that there's been extensive discussion earlier, we can go to the DRN. But leave it till after Christmas - this is a time for being with family, not for being hunched over a computer keyboard. :) PiCo (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!PiCo (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Click on "skip to open disputes" in the top left-hand corner of the page after you follow the link). PiCo (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gog and Magog, again

Per Talk:Gog_and_Magog#Rewrite_based_strictly_on_sources and the previous discussions, the material you keep trying to add is not adequately sourced. At most, it could give Przyluski's view as just a suggestion he made, and mention that Guénon discusses the idea. There is no "A few," there are only those two and that's it. The material about the circular wall is interpretation rather than summary of Guénon, and so cannot be used.

JudeccaXII backs this, and this is pretty much PiCo's contention in the previous discussion. The IP editor who was posting in that discussion turned out to be a sockpuppet of a blocked editor who regularly slanders other users, so his views count for nothing. Snow's main course of action was in finding a middle ground and settling any dispute. Although he (and I) supported including any noteworthy material, really sticking to the sources leaves almost no material that merits coverage.

I did suggest an alternate formulation on the talk page, and if you and Snow (or others) push for that one, there will be consensus to include it. But the old version simply goes against WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmitude

I've reverted your addition to Bat Ye'or because it was unsourced. I had tried to verify a similar statement before and couldn't find a RS to support it. Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Melanie Phillips 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 are 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Samuel Huntington and John Loftus. 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) 10:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Loftus. 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) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Removing the words "cover actions" as it is pure conjecture. Will allow your references to stand. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Caneagle (talk) Caneagle (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the edit warring report with a warning to you. Admins are given special powers to ensure that biographical articles aren't slanted against the article subject. As you may be able to tell from the article talk page, there have been past problems with getting this article to be neutral. You're advised to maintain careful neutrality in your future edits, and to wait for talk page consensus before making edits that could be controversial. I'm also notifying you of the BLP discretionary sanctions, below. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about ? Where did I mention Media Matters for America ??? Xinheart (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about living people are subject to discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

My reason for concern is the article on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox as expressed above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring on BLPs

Please seek a consensus for your edits on the BLPs of Pamela Geller and Wafa Sultan per WP:BRD instead of edit warring. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Wafa Sultan

Your recent editing history at Wafa Sultan 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Wafa Sultan and Pamela Geller

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]