User talk:Bigdan201

Planet articles
FYI, I've removed the "mph" escape velocity entries from the planets. As per my edit comment, the idea is to standardize the tables - currently, they use km/s and mi/s. Adding mph would require adding km/h as well, and would eventually crowd the table as all of the relevant data jumps from two entries to four entries. --Ckatz chat spy  02:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - no inconvenience at all, as it was nice of you to add the conversion. --Ckatz chat spy  03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Falls
"Sceptical" is the correct spelling in British English, in which this article is written. See WP:ENGVAR for more details. Thanks for your many good edits, but please be careful to respect the dialect an article is written in. --John (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I had assumed it was a typo, since I wasn't familiar with the British version of that word. I'll be aware of this in the future. Bigdan201 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dietrich-rongorongo-grouping-singleglyphs1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dietrich-rongorongo-grouping-singleglyphs1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting files
Hi Bigdan201. If you uploaded a non-free file that you would like to have deleted there are a few things you can do. The easiest is probably adding db-author per WP:G7 to the top of the file's page. You should only do this, however, if you are the only major contributor to the file's page (i.e., another editor has not updated any other versions of the original file) and the file is not being used in any articles.

Just for reference, even though you may upload a file, you do not own the file in a Wikipedia sense; so, if someone else feels it still can be used, then you need to discuss it with them or discuss it at WP:FFD. In this particular case, the non-free files you uploaded were not being used in any articles, so they are what is called an "orphan". Orphaned non-free files are eventually tag for deletion and then deleted in about a week after tagging as long as they remained orphaned. This is pretty much automatic process inolving bots and adminsitrators, so you as the uploader do not really need to do anything if you do not object to the file being deleted.

There are other reasons for which files are deleted as explained in WP:FCSD. If any of them apply, then you may tag the file accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure exactly what to do. This was informative, thanks. Bigdan201 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just be careful about Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's sort of "red flag" that will be often reverted by bots or well-meaning editors who might mistake it for a kind of vandalism. Also, be careful with multiple reverting because this too can be easily be mistaken for edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Bigdan201 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rongorongo-dietrich-polaris-hokupa-ihuku-immovablestar-standingabovethebow.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-polaris-hokupa-ihuku-immovablestar-standingabovethebow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Twelve Olympians
Hi Bigdan201. FYI: I've responded on the talk page here. Paul August &#9742; 14:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hefe Heetroc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hefe_Heetroc check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hefe_Heetroc?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy discretionary sanctions alert
Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rongorongo-dietrich-arcturus-standingabovebow-tekivakukuluakauihuku-genericmodifier.png


The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-arcturus-standingabovebow-tekivakukuluakauihuku-genericmodifier.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Rongorongo-dietrich-polaris-hokupaa-immovablestar.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rongorongo-dietrich-venus-meremere-maoriwarclub.png


The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-venus-meremere-maoriwarclub.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Overdue DS alert for gamergate etc
Doug Weller talk 11:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decipherment of rongorongo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syllabic and Tapu ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Decipherment_of_rongorongo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Decipherment_of_rongorongo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

3RR on decipherment of rongorongo
Please note that 3RR is not just for violating the 3RR/24hr rule, but for edit-warring in general. I'm not templating you because you're a regular, so please take this as a formal 3RR warning.

The fact that you've bought into a fringe 'theory' is not evidence that it belongs on WP. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd give you plenty of opportunity to change your mind, especially since I don't see a strong reason to keep the content removed. I'm aware of the rules, and wasn't going to go any further. keep in mind, the same applies to everyone. Xcalibur (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV
Hi Big Dan, I have reverted your changes. Please be aware that opinions such as this don't belong on Wikipedia. It is an encylopedia, not a place for people to express their opinions. Please see and follow WP:MEDRS Petersmillard (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought the existing reference was sufficient, but fair enough. I'll restore the challenged content with a stronger RS. Xcalibur (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can understand objecting to the Reuters source (even though it was an academic paper), but apparently a scholarly journal on medical ethics isn't enough either. can't say I'm surprised, controversial topics invite pov/agenda pushing. Xcalibur (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Roman numerals
This is currently in the hands of an administrator, who will no doubt be in touch. They have suggested that we suspend the current discussion, which is going nowhere, and do not revert/edit the section in contention until a new Rfc in the proper form resolves this long-running dispute. Neither of us will necessarily get exactly what we want - but I'm sure you will agree we have no alternative at this stage to following standard procedure. Sincere best wishes --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks for letting me know! admittedly I'm not too experienced in the workings of RfC, so it could probably be done better than my initial attempt. I've tried to debate this matter with civility, but there's some sort of fundamental disagreement that I haven't been able to address, which prevents progress. Keep in mind, my latest edits weren't attempting to re-instate the content, only add a passing reference to the text, but even this was enough to trigger the dispute. I look forward to a resolution. Regards, Xcalibur (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine - let's just see how things go! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Re latest... trouble is that only one person (your good self) sees what you are suggesting as "progress". This is not an "argument", or my attempt to "address" anything, just where we are. How do you like my latest suggestion (copy and pasted from the article talk page here, in case you missed it) I did not edit the article to this effect, and will not, unless it is agreed to by a consensus of editors at this point:
 * Some sources suggest more or less elaborate "rules" which attempt to define Roman numeral notation in terms of what is (or is not) "permitted" - the following table, on the other hand, shows the simple pattern behind the usual, or "standard" form, and is a simpler and clearer way of conveying this information.
 * -Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. the above - before you knee-jerk reject it, consider that the sources are mentioned (you can even reference one or two of them) - while the objections of other users (including me) are actually "answered" with a sensible compromise. Would this be acceptable (we might, although this would depend on the agreement of far "fiercer" opponents of your desires than me, cut "and is a simpler and clearer way of conveying this information" and even "more or less elaborate". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * pardon me, I didn't address this point on the talk page. yes, that would be fine, I have no objections. Xcalibur (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of taking your comments above literally - and added this as an edit to the article. While it is still (obviously) subject to objections, if we could get this accepted it would be very exciting to see the back of this running sore. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Circumcision and HIV, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. That Salem News PDF link is also a likely copyright violation - beware Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for the heads-up. I wasn't aware of any copyvio when posting, but now I've changed the ref to a much safer link. Xcalibur (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I responded with an edit summary, and assumed the original revert was in error. I wouldn't call it edit-warring, but I acknowledge your warning nonetheless. Xcalibur (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe try WP:BRD as a way of proceeding, heeding WP:ONUS? Trying to force an edit is never really a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * understood, thanks. Xcalibur (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Custom signature
It might be possible to get your account renamed to match your signature. See Changing username for the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Your recent editing history at Roman numerals shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman numerals. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NebY (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * to all interested parties, note that these warnings were posted on the First of April. Xcalibur (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You have described your actions as "an April Fools' prank". WP:FOOLS documents the limits on April Fool jokes on Wikipedia, limits which most editors understand anyway through observation and out of respect for the project and the community, but which you breached by inserting text into mainspace (text that you knew lacked either consensus or humour), by not tagging your text (instead describing it as "experimental" in edit summaries), and by edit warring to retain it. NebY (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * alright, if you insist. I'll keep this in mind. Xcalibur (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Roman numerals. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. .

The personal attack in question is this. Kahastok talk 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * understood. I had my reasons, but I'll admit it was a little excessive. Xcalibur (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Roman numerals. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''The further personal attack in question is here. You may have made the attack in those terms because you misunderstood "publish" to mean "print" without considering either the the specifics of the Roman book trade or the broader meaning of "publish", but it was still completely unacceptable. More generally, you might enjoy WP:DEADHORSE or at least find it of some help in your increasingly fraught experience of Wikipedia.'' NebY (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * publishing usually does refer to printing, so it sounded disingenuous, especially since the convention in the article dates from modern times. anyway, I understand, there was no need for me to lash out, even if I got annoyed by others. also, I haven't pushed that content in months, in fact I no longer even want it in the article (for my own reasons). again, I took April Fools too far, which was a one-off incident, so there's no real need for this. eta: just realized that this is about the latest post -- I didn't think that was a personal attack at all, at least, none was intended. the 'update' comment was (and at first I thought that's what this was about), but I saw nothing wrong with the last comment. I was simply stating why I took offense in the first place, since "Romans publishing rules" and "sanctions for breaking them" are in fact complete misrepresentations. I honestly had no idea that would be perceived as an attack, so I beg your pardon. Xcalibur (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent me is a gross personal attack. As yet, no-one's replied to that latest post at Talk:Roman numerals, so you can still revert it before stepping away. NebY (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought I was stating an objective fact, but I see what you mean now. that post at least was genuinely an unintentional offense, so I reworded it. also, I know discussion was excessive, mostly because I was hoping for a breakthrough that never came, and also because the 'brief mention' was taken as a direct continuation rather than the modest compromise I intended. in my mind, I dropped the stick in September 2020, and haven't picked it up since, because sometimes, other editors will not be persuaded. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * taken as an attack, and that wasn't intended is not an adequate retraction of you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent me. Likewise, regarding in my mind, I dropped the stick in September 2020, and haven't picked it up since, whatever's in your mind, you have edited Roman numerals and Talk:Roman numerals every month since September 2020, 115 times altogether. NebY (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * edited again. September 2020 is when I dropped the proposed section. for a few months after (October - December) I tried to add a single brief mention of rules/logic, thinking that would be acceptable; instead, it reignited the controversy and was treated the same as the section, which I wasn't counting on. that accounts for most of those edits. my edits this year were constructive and not related to the controversy (such as rewording under standard form, or reducing scare quotes/emphasis), and I only made a few comments on the talk page. I also didn't touch the article/talk during February. the exception to all this is of course my April Fools stunt, and my lashing out a couple days later. I should've realized that you guys would not be amused. anyway, that's the end of it -- I should probably just avoid that particular article, given the history there. Xcalibur (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You'll need to take it off your watchlist to achieve that. NebY (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * that's a possibility. the real issue is that once debate flared up, I got a little too invested tbh. my Postscript should be the end of it -- I just wanted to get the last remaining thoughts out of my head (alongside other stuff). anyway, thanks for your advice. Xcalibur (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've been warned before. Your fringe POV edit-war has gone on more than long enough. Keep it up and I'll request to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that qualifies as edit-warring, since I responded with an edit summary. I'm not trying to add my proposed content, just reformat the note (that you added) so that it's accurate and not misleading. if the RS say that a researcher is building on sand (or on the clouds), then let them be called pseudo-science. but other names mentioned there, including D, only have a link to their primary sources without any refutation. this applies to all, not just D, but it's especially true in his case due to the mostly positive EB review. despite our long-term disagreements, there's no need for gatekeeping or hostility. Xcalibur (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Kwami
Are you also having problems with Kwami's bull-in-a-china-shop editing style? Talk to me about it. See also Talk:Enochian. Let's support each other. Skyerise (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly have! that editor has taken it upon himself to gatekeep the article on Decipherment of Rongorongo. I did a section on a theory, with quality content and RS, but it can't go up because kwami personally disagrees with it, which is not a valid reason at all, but WP culture seems to enable this sort of thing. Even correcting a detail leads to a back & forth. I'll be sure to take a look at that talk page. Regards, Xcalibur (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's also gatekeeping Enochian. I'll watchlist this article if you watchlist that article. :-) The only way to stop editors like that is to build a consensus against them. I'll bet we can find a few other articles with disgruntled editors ast well... Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it's better if I watch, keep count, and file 3RR reports on your behalf; and you watch, keep count, and file 3RR reports on my behalf, if you see what I mean... Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, understood. Pardon me, I've been a little busy, but I'll attend to this. Xcalibur (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never have any expectation of quick replies here... Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Enochian
Come round when you can... Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for the heads-up, been a bit distracted by other matters the past few days. Looks like things have flared up again! I'll be in there soon. Xcalibur (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

FTN
While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with. WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence. WP articles reporting about a scientific consensus, like that climate change is recognized to be anthropogenic by relevant experts, is not "FRINGE abuse". Climate change denial is also not "an unpopular scientific view", it's not even the "scientific view". The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks... WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence".

An example is "Climate change is a theory, not a fact", it just makes no sense. Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis? In the case of climate change or global warming, the hypothesis that the planet heats up was long confirmed. Other hypotheses linking dynamics to climate in relation to aerosols and other forcings were also tested. Various hypotheses advanced to explain change with natural cycles have also confirmed that while known cycles do affect climate, they do not account for the observed trend. Then climate science rests on various disciplines and a number of working scientific theories. The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes. It's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that reports about the state of science, but does not run or do the science (not a scientific journal). And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined. But don't take my word for it, look at the sources cited by WP articles including scientific consensus on climate change. If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories. However, there are reliable sources that describe disinformation campaigns to deny that climate change occurs or that it would be possible to mitigate it, the sources cited in climate change denial are a good starting point.

The reason I posted this here instead of at FTN is that there's no need to waste more time there. It's also a warning that is best posted here per WP:ASPERSIONS. It doesn't concern WP or FTN, but your use of WP to campaign. — Paleo Neonate  – 07:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:PaleoNeonate First of all, my apologies for disappearing for awhile. I imagine other editors thought I was shirking from providing sources, but that's not the case, I was pulled away by irl matters. Even if I dug up various sources, though, it would probably not be very productive. I have all too much experience with the "RS bar", which gets arbitrarily raised and lowered by the gatekeepers here: on one article, glorified blogs are reliable; on another, scholarly journals are not good enough.


 * Anyway, onto the discussion:


 * While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with. Keep in mind that I brought up climate change in passing to make a point, I hadn't realized it would get completely derailed. All I did was respond to others.
 * WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence. In other words, science has become an irrational religion, and I'm a blaspheming heretic for questioning its predictions.
 * The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks... In other words, personal attacks are allowed, just so long as they're based on evidence? There are editors I've encountered on other articles who I could call incompetent, incapable of reading comprehension or critical thinking, as well as being passive-aggressive douchebags. Surely I'd be blocked for saying those things, even though I could make a strong case for it.
 * Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis? I understand just fine, which is why I called it a theory, not a fact. The climate getting warmer, the greenhouse effect, our output of co2, those are facts. The complex models that draw this together, and claim that it's largely anthropogenic and a threat to our way of life, is a theory with a fair amount of uncertainty. The climate is a complex system with many variables, not all of which are accounted for, which leads a minority of scientists to theorize that natural processes are more significant, and that the situation will right itself without any significant changes to our way of life.
 * The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes.I believe that any and all controversial topics (and this certainly is one) should give representation to as many views as possible. Otherwise, you can end up with one-sided, biased propaganda. And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined. I'm not the one doing that. The boundary between the two has been very muddled irl, which can compromise the scientific process. If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories. I didn't say that, I just introduced the possibility that the consensus may be wrong, and the minority view correct. The fact that this is not allowed at all tells me that science is compromised by a dogmatic reading of its results. disinformation campaigns you mean heresy? Xcalibur (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You may call it heresy if you want, but a difference is that disinformation is also the promotion of false information (misleading propaganda). For WP editing, confusing facts and opinions, or scientific consensus and mere beliefs and claims, as equally valid, is WP:GEVAL...  "Which is why I called it a theory, not a fact" is confusing the general word "theory" (i.e. a guess), "scientific hypothesis" (i.e. the verifiable hypothesis that warming occurs), and "scientific theory", a model to explain observations and make predictions.  It's like saying that evolution is "just a theory", when it too, rests on overwhelming evidence.  Since these are not dogmatic positions, if there was considerable evidence contradicting them it would no longer be the scientific consensus for scientists in those fields.  To claim that this is false would be entering the domain of conspiracy theories.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again, evolution and climate models are not equivalent. There's an element of controversy and uncertainty in the climate that simply doesn't exist for the theory of evolution. Also, I'd caution you against using the word "disinformation", which has become Newspeak for anything powerful entities disapprove of. Since these are not dogmatic positions, if there was considerable evidence contradicting them it would no longer be the scientific consensus for scientists in those fields. To claim that this is false would be entering the domain of conspiracy theories. This assumes that science operates flawlessly and cannot make mistakes. It is entirely possible for scientists to arrive at the wrong consensus, especially when the scientific process itself can be subverted by money, politics, and ideology. There's no reason to assume that the dissenting minority of climate scientists aren't just as scientific, or that questioning the consensus is a "conspiracy theory", another Newspeak term for anything the establishment disapproves of (note how Russian collusion in the 2016 election is never derided as a conspiracy theory, even though it literally is). Xcalibur (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do embrace conspiracy theories that climate change science is ideologically motivated. But I have no intention in wasting more time on this, the important is that WP articles don't promote them.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put it that way. Climate science isn't ideologically motivated, rather, it can be influenced/subverted by politics/ideology. At the very least, you can't rule this out, not when it's such a highly politicized issue. Additionally, there are other reasons for uncertainty inherent in the scientific study of climate itself. All of which is why, even though there's overwhelming support for one side, the minority view is still worth considering. And it's not just this, I think in general, Wikipedia handles controversial issues poorly, and I'm not the only one who sees it that way. Xcalibur (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One more note on this: science is not done by consensus, but by the scientific method. Institutional support, studies etc lend weight to a hypothesis, but they're not necessarily proof. It's actually possible for the scientific establishment to be wrong, and dissenters to be correct -- unlikely, but possible. Dogmatic belief in scientific findings can quickly become pseudoscience if you're not careful. Xcalibur (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not call content disputes vandalism
as you did in your edit summary here. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies, that may have been excessive. However, I was responding to the edit summary just before. For context, an editor insisted that the disputed content should not go up on the grounds that sourcing is inefficient. The only other objection, from the first editor I discussed with, is that he personally disagrees. Since the sourcing issue is the only valid objection, I investigated, and noticed that some of the existing sections are also lacking in sourcing. Thus, it's a contradiction -- do sections of the Decipherment_of_rongorongo need strong sourcing, or do they not? It makes no sense to reject my content on the grounds that sources are lacking, when existing sections have even less sourcing. Thus, I'm trying to keep the article consistent with decisions made. Xcalibur (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I've just posted at the talk page saying that you couldn't have checked the sources yourself when restoring, not a good idea. There is too much stuff from a self-published author in that section. The only reason I can think of for keeping it is the Horly review, which I know you didn't read because the link was wrong. And of course only Horly, not comments about what she published after the review. Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The De Laat section is an amalgamation of the work of 3 editors: kwami, Francis Mortimer, and myself. The sources date back years, as does De Laat's inclusion in the article. Thus, the Horley link probably became outdated between now and the last time I checked it (I recall doing so awhile back). Anyway, if there are valid objections to De Laat, I won't insist on inclusion of that part. I always thought Dietrich was on better grounds anyway, having been published and reviewed. eta: while calling an edit "vandalism" was unnecessary, if you check edit history, the other editor called me a vandal first! I'd say that's the worse offense. Xcalibur (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And now I've told him what I think of that. You know the saying about two wrongs.  Doug Weller  talk 12:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And I see at least one personal attack at Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo
I'm sure I noticed another one but couldn't find it again, I won't waste my time looking. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been told that it's not a personal attack if it's based on evidence. I've tried to be civil throughout, but other editors have been provocative and obnoxious many times. If my comments seem a little excessive, it's because there's context. For example, when I referred to comments as disingenuous, that's because they really were. I know it's alot to go through, but I provided evidence for this at the end of the Summary section. Xcalibur (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's a subjective opinion. In any case it is not at all conducive to collaborative working. Doug Weller  talk 12:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Other editors set the tone, and I responded. I made an effort to be civil, but there's a long context there, and it can be difficult at times. I was not the only one making unconstructive comments by any means. But I see your point. Xcalibur (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

edit-war warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You need to get consensus on the talk page, since all of your edits have been rejected by the rest of the community. You don't need to revert 3 times a day to be blocked. Your 5-year history of edit-warring is plenty. We're also considering a topic ban (no edits at all to RR articles). — kwami (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * as I said in my most recent edit summary, I was simply applying the talk page consensus to the article. Does content need to have plenty of cites in the literature, or does it not? As the article stands, it's contradictory. I may have been rejected, but there's no valid, consistent rationale for rejection. It's just alot of OWNERSHIP and IDONTLIKEIT. Xcalibur (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you were making POINTy edits in violation of consensus. It's difficult for me to believe that you're not aware of this. If you actually are editing in good faith, you are going to need to communicate that better because, based on their comments, no-one seems to believe you. Blanking sections of the article because you and only you believes that it violates some consensus that only you can see is a good way to get a topic ban. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The consensus was stated clearly enough on the talk page: researchers need to have a significant # of sources and/or cites to be added. I was even personally attacked over a perceived lack of sourcing, which led me to notice that most existing sections have even less sourcing. Thus, I "interrogated" the article to see if it fits this decision, which led to a shift of goal-posts towards citations. Austronesier, to his credit, provided rationales, until I got to Kudrjavtsev et al, which lacks both sources & cites (even the Sproat source is a brief mention, on par with Berthins paper for D). Yet, that has to stay up? It's contradictory, and it doesn't qualify as POINT because it's the exact same content in the exact same article. As I said, there is no coherent objection, it's all just gatekeeping & OWNERSHIP. Xcalibur (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You twisted what you claimed was the consensus to support the very thing it refuted. If that's not intentionally dishonest, it's a pretty good imitation. You seem to purposefully misunderstand other people. I no longer give rationales because I've given up. It's possible that you're psychologically incapable of understanding anything that contradicts what you believe. It's possible that you do understand and are simply pretending you don't. In the end, it hardly matters. We've no had, what, four unrelated people say you should be topic-banned from RR? That should tell you that people aren't buying your reasons. — kwami (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by that, I just applied the decision made on the talk page (sources/cites). If this consensus was drawn up as an arbitrary reason to keep out my submissions, that's not my fault, but if you set a bar for me to jump over, then the article needs to meet that same standard. It's absurd to say that D isn't supported when I have more support than existing sections you want to keep! That includes primary & secondary sources, mentions in papers and other coverage, and acknowledgement from Fischer (which deflates the argument that it's an "outsider" position). I try to understand where you're coming from, and I don't lack understanding; it seems to me like you're declaring the article as your personal domain.
 * The only purpose of topic-banning would be to enforce your OWNERSHIP. De Laat has conflicts of interest, and Sumanuil doesn't know the whole story, only getting involved when I messed around on April Fools (I wasn't expecting wikipedians to be so uptight). It's funny to me that De Laat accused me of being "unresponsive", when Austronesier accused me of bludgeoning by responding to points being made! Meanwhile, it was mostly an academic discussion that ultimately doesn't matter. Dietrich, Esen-baur, and De Laat can be as wrong as a 3 dollar bill and still get coverage. In fact, critical RS give even more reason for coverage, and I'd be willing to add a section for that. Xcalibur (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
You are now intentionally adding bullshit to Rongorongo. That is vandalism. I know you're pissed because you can't get anyone else to drink the Kool-Aid, but this has got to stop. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you review the vandalism policy, that's clearly not what this is. My recent edits might look like edit-warring, but in fact I was trying out different compromises. I had to do this, because of stonewalling on the talk page. My most recent edit was a simple name-drop, why would you object to something so minor? Keep in mind, RS are the decisive factor here, and I'm backed by RS. If you can get a reputable scholarly journal to post your ridicule/mockery about Atlantis and rabbits, then *we can actually add it*, *if* it gets published, which it never would be. We go by RS rather than personal views, so it doesn't matter how wrong/dumb you believe it is. As I said, the whole debate about the theory was ultimately irrelevant, I only participated out of good faith. But I will add, even if you disagree with the astronomy connection, the graphical analysis at least is a genuine insight into RR's structure, which is why my name-drop edit was appropriate IMO. I also see nothing wrong with De Laat, who may be SELFPUB, but there are RS there, so I added a brief summary per DUEWEIGHT (I also greatly reduced D's section for the same reason).
 * I don't think I'm being unreasonable. If only you were open to reason, then we could establish a truce. Xcalibur (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The truce is that you abide by consensus, and stop pretending that somehow everyone else is part of a conspiracy that I run. And also stop pretending that you don't understand RS. Since you're literate, I can't believe that after 5 years, and several people explaining it to you, you still don't know what it means.
 * So, you're asking to add just a little bit of bullshit to the article. But I suspect it will grow until it's a lot. But even if it doesn't, we're not supposed to add any bullshit to articles. Call it "stonewalling" if you like, but half reliably sourced, half bullshit is not an acceptable compromise between a reliably sourced article and complete bullshit. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus, it's just you disputing with me due to OWNERSHIP of the article. Austronier leaned towards your side, another editor was supportive of my side, and De Laat has an obvious CoI. That to me seems like no clear consensus.
 * If reputable scholarly journals aren't RS, then what is? Why should it matter if you personally think ideas are bullshit? WP goes by RS, we let editorial boards decide what's reliable and what's not, then we report it as a tertiary source. It so happens that all my edits are backed by RS, but you gatekeep them because you're the self-appointed arbiter of rongorongo research. I've tried to get through to you on this, but as I said, you don't seem amenable to reason. It's even more absurd in this case because RR is an unsolved mystery with no academic consensus, there's no guarantee that anything in the article is valid, which is why FRINGE doesn't apply as long as there's RS. Xcalibur (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one was ever on your side, except for me in the beginning.
 * Unanimous opposition is indeed consensus. You've been repeating this mantra for years, that everyone else doesn't count because they're somehow my puppets, but really, if you can't see that, then you're not competent to engage in a cooperative enterprise like WP.
 * A RS may debunk a fringe idea. It's still fringe. People have been over all of this before. You refuse to understand. Whether that's intentional (bad faith) or not I don't know, but either way repeating the same debunked nonsense over and over again is exactly the kind of thing that gets people topic-banned. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If I repeat things, it's because you don't listen. As I said, there's no clear, unambiguous consensus, given at least one editor being supportive of my side, and the issues with Austronesier & De Laat. If a FRINGE idea is debunked, we can cover it as such. But you don't get to decide what's FRINGE, especially not in a topic like Decipherment of Rongorongo, which differs from many other topics in that there is no academic consensus or significant minority views! It's an unsolved mystery, with various attempts to solve the puzzle. One guess is as good as another, whether it's Kudrjavtsev et al. or Dietrich, as long as the RS are there and we follow DUEWEIGHT. I responded more substantially in the thread below. Xcalibur (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

3RR
You've violated 3RR. I suggest you revert yourself. If you don't, then in the morning I will file a 3RR complaint, and request a topic ban to prevent you from ever editing rongorongo articles again. There have been 3 people besides myself who have independently suggested you be topic-banned, so I suspect there's a good chance that would happen. Especially after 5 years of your playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I shouldn't need to template the talk page of an established editor such as yourself, but I will need to show that I warned you before filing the 3RR complaint, and this is the easiest way to do that:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that was a violation of 3rr, especially not when I'm just testing out different compromises. I take this to mean you won't accept a short De Laat section either? I thought it was worth a try. I did realize the back & forth reverts were getting borderline, so I was planning to drop it if you reverted De Laat (why I don't know, it has RS, and I updated it with the recent revision as I said). Xcalibur (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted, per request. Xcalibur (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not escalating further.
 * You reverted 4 times in 24 hrs -- that is indeed a violation of 3RR. However, edit-warring may result in a block even if you do not violate 3RR: it's edit-warring that's the problem, and 3RR is just a tripwire. I don't want to play brinkmanship, where we each edit-war just to the 3RR limit and claim that we're not "really" edit-warring. Chronic edit-warring at even one edit a day still gets people blocked. At this point in this chronic, 5-year edit-war, almost any edit you make is a partial revert to something that's already been rejected, so you start off at 1RR.
 * We've been going over this for 5 years, and people are tired of repeating themselves. I know I am. There's also the problem of WP:TLDR, which others have called "bludgeoning". Yes, I know you object to that word, but that should tell you how they feel about interacting with you at this point. You've said you won't accept what I have to say, but others have explained to you what RS means in practice. As others have explained to you, EB is not an expert. She herself says as much -- she proposed that the experts take a look, but none have bothered. When I asked some of the very ones she named, they either didn't respond or were dismissive. If you think I'm lying, fine: contact them yourself! This is typical of pseudo-scholarship, where the experts feel it would be a waste of their time to debunk obvious nonsense because there's no end to it. Unless it becomes popular, like Chariots of the Gods, where they're filling a public need, a scholar could spend their life debunking crackpots with nothing to show for it. There aren't many James Randis in the world willing to do that.
 * De Laat's thesis isn't even stable. I don't recall what was in the Horley review, but you detail DL's self-published claims rather that the RS review. That is, you don't use 2ary sources, and you don't use RS's, even when you claim that's what you're doing. Rather, you depend entirely on self-published material. But DL's abandoned that thesis anyway, because of H's review if I remember correctly. For DL's current thesis, there is no review for us to go on.
 * For the other, EB collaborated with the author in her coverage. As others have explained, that's not what a "review" is in academic writing -- that's what a co-author is. And remember, I'm the one who up to 5 years ago insisted we retain your coverage in the face of unanimous opposition (among those who responded at the time, anyway). So it may be 5 years for you and me, but it's closer to 10 years for those who always opposed adding this material. So yeah, people are tired of it.
 * The way to approach this, if you just cannot let go, is to craft a draft for discussion, rather than edit-warring by restoring each revision to the article, where it can (and should) be deleted immediately. And then allowing people to edit it, even if that means gutting it almost completely, without making multiple copies to "save" your version in the hope that you can work it back in later. But even if you do that, you shouldn't expect it to ever actually end up in the article. The problem here (as others have pointed out) is WP:NOTABLE. How are either of these 'decipherments' notable? One is self-published, debunked in a single RS, then completely revised with no RS response. That is, the part we can cover has been abandoned by the author, and isn't influencing anyone or is in any other way notable. The other is a non-expert collaborating on Von Däniken–level pseudo-scholarship and asking for expert review, which no expert has bothered to do. There are many other 'decipherments' that we don't bother to cover, precisely because of notability. The only thing that makes these two different is that they're relatively recent, but being recent doesn't make something notable. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But frankly, given that in the previous thread you still maintain that unanimous opposition to your edits is not "consensus", that you're still showing obstinate refusal to understand even the basics of academic writing or of WP requirement, makes me doubt very much that any attempt to do this will be anything other than a further waste of your and others' time. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, pardon me for the delayed response. You reverted 4 times in 24 hrs -- that is indeed a violation of 3RR. I don't see this, are you sure you're not misreading the times/dates? I thought I was within 3rr, even if you count the name-drop, which to me is a separate proposal from the sections. I'm aware that you don't need to violate 3rr to get in trouble for edit-warring. I reiterate that I was trying out various compromises, with most edits differing in some way, so it wasn't purely tug-of-war.
 * 5 years That's when it began, although I've tried for compromises since then (like reducing D's section to a single screen-length, or 1/4 of the original). I also took a long wikibreak for 1 1/2 years, with shorter breaks as well, so it's not like I was active that whole time-frame.
 * tldr it's hard to avoid this when you use a gish-gallop style of argument, and when we're discussing the finer points of theories about rongorongo, which is a rather complex topic. I'm aware that I can be wordy at times, and I've made efforts to be more concise. However, you focused the entire discussion on the merits of the theory, which is not even relevant to whether it should be included or not! All that matters is RS and DUEWEIGHT considerations. I responded to all points as best I could, then get blamed for bludgeoning, and also accused of being "unresponsive" by De Laat? I don't think it's primarily my fault.
 * tired of repeating themselves. That's because we tend to talk past each other, especially when you ignore my points. For example:
 * EB is not an expert ... pseudo-scholarship That's the thing, you have your own definition of expertise & RS, based on your cult-worship of Guy, Sproat, et al. Don't get me wrong, I respect them, but I don't even need them to weigh in (in fact, it seems like the field is moribund, based on what you said about the Yahoo! group being inactive). All I need are primary & secondary RS in the form of reputable journals, which I have. The concerns you've raised about D & EB being in communication, EB being an expert on Polynesia rather than ancient scripts, etc. are valid concerns. But scholarly journals decided that this was acceptable and published them, therefore so should WP.
 * De Laat's thesis isn't even stable. Maybe not, but I did in fact draw from the Horley review back when I wrote the section; it documents the self-published claims, which is why I put them there. How can you say I'm not following RS when you haven't read the RS? Anyway, yes there are issues with De Laat, but I didn't want Francis Mortimer's efforts to go to waste, and figured I could salvage something out of it. Per DUEWEIGHT, I reduced it to half a page, and it's a combination of myself, you, and Francis' writing.
 * For DL's current thesis, there is no review for us to go on. That's why I addressed it in a single line at the end and didn't elaborate (primary RS are allowed to an extent).
 * EB collaborated with the author in her coverage. Already addressed this above. If it's good enough for the literature, it's good enough for WP. And she's not a co-author, because they wrote separate pieces in separate journals.
 * remember, I'm the one who up to 5 years ago insisted we retain your coverage in the face of unanimous opposition A false narrative. You were amenable to the idea that RR is not writing, but a notation system, but as soon as you started skimming EB, you decided you didn't like it for some reason (I think the linchpin of misunderstanding was thinking D couldn't find matches with Rapa nui astronomy, and that drawing from elsewhere was mass-comparison; wrong on both counts). Other than that, there were a few people who complained at the very beginning, but it was just typical concern over adding new content (I resolved one objection by re-uploading the illustrations as free to use, which they were when I cropped them correctly (except for one)).
 * 10 years I thought I was the first person to suggest D? Or are you referring to other proposals, like the Korean editor whose contributions were way too long?
 * craft a draft for discussion I did in fact put a copy of the content in a talk subpage, where all this could've been done. Instead, you got it deleted.
 * NOTABILITY Once again, you ignore me. This may surprise you, but I don't need to demonstrate notability at all! Notability is only for articles, not for adding content to articles. Again, if I have primary/secondary RS, then I should be able to add it, especially when it's in scholarly journals. I answered most of these other points already, but I'll address another:
 * Von Däniken–level pseudo-scholarship I don't know who Von Däniken is, but if he's in the scholarly literature, we can add a section on it based on whatever is there. Anyway, your judgment doesn't matter, the judgment of reputable journals does matter, and they approved D. It seems fine to me, as I said you seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the material. Actual pseudo-scholarship would be the claim that Indus Valley Seal Script is somehow connected with rongorongo, even though they're separated by about 3000 years (!) and 1000 miles. Obviously, any similarities are just coincidence and/or convergence of design. I've actually seen crackpots spout this nonsense, which no reputable journal would ever publish -- we should only mention this to refute it as an absurdity, pending critical sources. But Dietrich has no obvious problems.
 * unanimous opposition to your edits is not "consensus" Another editor was supportive of my side, and I already addressed the issues with Austronesier and De Laat, so it's ambiguous. Xcalibur (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (reposting summary) Yes, I'm following policy, but you seem to have an alternate understanding. Let me boil it down: NOTABILITY doesn't apply to adding content, only making new articles (I agree that D should not have his own article, just a section). RS is satisfied by primary & secondary scholarly journals. FRINGE doesn't apply because there is no consensus for rongorongo, so one guess is as good as any other, so long as it's published in the literature (otherwise, you could argue that this entire article is FRINGE/UNDUE and should be deleted as such). Austronier's demand for more sources/cites contradicts the existing article, particularly Kudrjavtsev et al. And there's no unambiguous CONSENSUS. Thus, there's no basis for opposition. If you can give me a policy-based, coherent rationale, I'll listen and concede, but you can't. All you've got is OWNERSHIP and gatekeeping, I'm afraid. Xcalibur (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again: the merits of the theory, whether it's right or wrong etc don't matter. It can be wrong and still go up! All that matters is policy, which I adhere to. However, kwami is gatekeeper of the article, and as long as he personally disagrees with this, it obviously won't go up, no matter how much policy/RS support I have. So I'll take one last shot at explaining this stuff. You said, in your attempt to summarize D, failing to find many matches in Rapa Nui ... he resorted to mass comparison completely wrong, this nonsense never should've been added. D did find matches with Rapa Nui astronomy! In fact, pretty much all known Rapa Nui star-names fit right into the theory. It's just that there's a serious paucity of Rapa-nui star-names, we don't have enough to go on. That, combined with D's belief that rongorongo did not originate on Easter Island, justifies consulting other Polynesian cultures. As I explained to you, the Polynesian islands had a great deal of overlap and cultural exchange, with many common, pan-Polynesian concepts throughout, so that star-names would not be isolated to one island/culture; thus, no mass-comparison. It's not mass-comparison if the units you're comparing are all related, like Romance languages are related to Latin, or Polynesian cultures to each other. Again, this shouldn't be relevant, but I thought I'd make one more attempt in good faith. Xcalibur (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Further warning
You reverted yourself the other day, but have now picked up your edit-war again. Adding just a *little* bullshit to the article is not appropriate, and I assume you're competent enough to know that. If you want to make a change, I suggest you draft it on talk and get consensus for it *before* you add it.

PS. "Consensus" doesn't mean everyone *disagrees* with you, it means ppl *agree* with you. Pardon me if I don't need to spell that out for you, but you've justified previous edits on the opposite. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the sections and brief mention as two different issues. I thought maybe you'd be willing to compromise on one point, even if you're opposed to the rest of the content. And I'm not just inserting my personal view -- EB stated that D has made real advancements in the conclusion (I've already mentioned Berthins paper, etc). It seems that you're allergic to even minimal acknowledgement, which is unfortunate. But I wanted to give you a chance at least. Xcalibur (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections edit
How is it possible for you to make this edit? You've been here for 16 years! You know better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been here on & off over that length of time. Anyway, it was just an experiment, and I gave my rationale in the edit summary (literally a theory about a conspiracy, and it's unproven). I just wanted to test and see how others would respond, same deal with the Covid edit. On that article, I was simply making a logical point, that while the supposed lab origin of AIDS was Soviet propaganda, that doesn't disprove every lab origin; and in fact, covid-19 is still shrouded in mystery. Sometimes I'm cavalier about trying things out tbh. Xcalibur (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying, but what I have to say is very serious. I have looked at your contribution history and the history of this talk page. I'm amazed that you haven't been blocked yet. You have many warnings for various forms of disruptive editing and behavior. Not good. In light of that, I won't hesitate to recommend that you receive a long block if I see anymore dubious editing.

My immediate concerns relate to the edit above, and some of what I write here also applies to the edit mentioned in the next section.


 * 1) Don't be "cavalier" and treat Wikipedia like your own private website or blog. Don't make humorous edits, experiments, tests, points, or add your own commentary to articles. Talk pages are more forgiving, but don't do it on article pages. Doing so stretches the limits of how much good faith other editors can impute to you. They are forced to revert your edits, and that should not be necessary. Your dubious edits are also an example of a type of WP:POINT violation. Editors then begin to doubt your intentions here. Are you a serious editor, a newbie, a vandal, a POV pusher? Try to take editing seriously. The world reads our articles and should not see such defective content, even if it's there for only a few seconds. You are part of the reason that people doubt the accuracy of Wikipedia!!! Period.
 * 2) Don't advocate fringe theories here. You have been warned about this above by PaleoNeonate. Such WP:Advocacy is forbidden. Climate change/global warming is very real, and the Russians did interfere in the 2016 and 2020 elections, all with Trump's advance knowledge (he started discussing his candidacy with Russians at least as early as 2013, long before making it known to Americans), cooperation, and running defense for them in many devious and deceptive ways that to this day continue to threaten national security and aid Russian interests. Those are solid facts, so don't bring any doubt about such things to relevant articles or any talk pages here, even your own talk page or any subpages. (I don't know if you've done that but am covering my bases, as forbidden advocacy applies to all of Wikipedia.) You're free to doubt facts in your personal life and outside of Wikipedia, but don't bring those doubts here unless you are sincerely wondering and asking on a private talk page. Don't do it on article talk pages as that violates NOTFORUM. We allow much latitude to private conversations among editors on their own talk pages, and seeking truth and facts is certainly allowable, but advocacy and defense of fringe POV is not allowed. That's one of the great advantages to editing here. One comes into contact with people who know a lot, and we can learn from them.
 * 3) That you seem to believe such fringe theories is concerning and makes me question your competence to edit here. You should be better informed. You should understand the subjects you are editing by adding or deleting significant content, even a phrase or sentence. Obviously, a deeper understanding is not necessary when making minor and gnomish editing, but your edits are significantly meaningful and disruptive.
 * 4) Don't be a time sink. Your dubious edits waste our time.

You have been warned many, many, MANY!!! times for many such offenses, but you still do it. That's not good. You are not showing a positive learning curve, and we expect that. More experience here should mean greater knowledge and trustworthiness as an editor. I don't see that when I see some of your edits and your overall editing patterns. '''This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here.'''

I hope you will take this to heart, otherwise, your next faux pas will be dealt with much more seriously, and your clean block log will be sullied. Try to avoid that.

I'll ping some other editors from your talk page history who have dealt with you in the past so we can all keep you under stricter observation. (They should also see the next section.): PaleoNeonate, Kwamikagami, Doug Weller, NebY, Johnuniq, Bon courage,Petersmillard, Paul August, Marchjuly, Nikkimaria. There are more, but this should be enough. Your talk page history reveals a pattern of disruption from you for a long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That was a bit more than I expected! If you don't mind, I'd like to defend myself from this tirade, within reason.


 * Cavalier: Yes, I've probably been a bit too BOLD at times, including recently. I thought it was harmless at the time, eg when I added contested material as an April Fool's stunt, but I'll keep this in mind.
 * time sink/disruptive: Sometimes I get too stubborn, but that's usually when I'm adding encyclopedic content, and it gets rejected for no valid reason whatsoever. For example, on
 * Roman Numerals, I tried to document what the RS say about how to write them, aka how they define the usual style. The other editors basically decided they didn't like it, and never had much of a valid argument against me just following RS (if they had just said it's too technical, that might've ended it much earlier). Even after I realized they would never agree, I kept it going out of stubbornness. That's my fault, but the only reason I lashed out at the end was because they repeatedly personally attacked me first, in summaries and talk page posts. JohnUniq, who you pinged, made statements that were unbelievably condescending, passive-aggressive, and disingenuous (that's not an attack, it's literally true), even if I went a little overboard, that's not justified. As for
 * Decipherment of Rongorongo, what I added was not FRINGE at all, I was again documenting what the scholarly journal RS have to say on the topic. Like Roman Numerals, I was willing to negotiate and compromise, to no avail. Alot of that discussion was irrelevant anyway, since kwami insisted on debating the theory itself, which was ultimately irrelevant -- it's about following RS, but editors who claim OWNERSHIP of articles don't respect this. Again, I was attacked and ridiculed by kwami & others, although I did a better job of keeping my cool that time. While Dietrich was my own content, De Laat was a summary of previous content + my own edits.
 * The above addresses the major conflicts I've gotten into. Other than that, I tried to add info from scholarly journals on


 * Circumcision and HIV (where I encountered Petersmillard). I simply wanted to point out that the whole claim that amputating foreskins somehow reduces AIDS is based entirely on 3 trials by 1 team in 2002, and that's literally it; on top of that, journals say that the methodology was garbage. This obviously indicates pseudoscience and quackery (because science is supposed to be redundant, and have proper methodology). All I tried to do was mention these points, without drawing conclusions, but the articles' gatekeepers wouldn't allow this. They wouldn't even allow a mention of the obvious fact that sex before the cut is healed increases risk! That said, it was a modest dispute, and I don't think I did anything to excess there, I'm just trying to be thorough about my history.
 * climate change: I'm aware of the scientific consensus. But the thing is, consensus doesn't define reality, science is a set of tools for DESCRIBING reality, not writing Scripture. Scientists are not wizards, and they're not infallible gods, and they're not worthy of worship. We put weight on positions based on consensus/prestige (similar to WP policy of DUEWEIGHT), but that's not proof; the minority dissenting view (that climate change is natural and/or nothing to worry about) could in fact be true, and the consensus could be wrong. It's unlikely, but absolutely possible. Therefore, I think the alternate view should be represented also (although reliance on mainstream RS would make that tricky). More importantly, the whole climate issue was on a noticeboard, and not in main article space! When I commented there, I didn't expect it to spiral into a large debate, and I shouldn't be blamed for that. If something's my fault, I'll admit it.
 * Russian interference: How in the world is that a fact, when it's totally unproven? Lol. It's actually an opinion, albeit one with massive RS support. I find it rather confusing that you claim that the 2016 election was subverted, but claims about subversion in 2020 are dismissed as conspiracy theories; it's almost as if elections are invalid when Orange Führer wins, then suddenly become valid again when your candidate wins. Let's not forget, the MSM also claims that a vegan nudist in the Green Party was a far-right nazi (lol), and claims he broke into the Pelosi residence, despite her having a 24/7 security detail (because she was 3rd in succession); they also speak of 100s of far-right conspiracy blog-posts without a single screenshot or archive link, just a deactivated blog; but you can check godisloving.wordpress in Wayback Machine, and there's nothing there but bot posts and a short rant on big tech censorship which any Trump supporter would agree with. Whatever happened between DePape and Paul Pelosi, the media are obviously lying about it, all with the same cover story. I haven't even mentioned this last bit on WP until now, but the point is that, due to the culture war, RELIABILITY has in some cases been compromised. This is also true of the Russian interference claim, which again was never proven. It also makes no strategic sense for Trump or Moscow to do this: why pursue such a wildly risky strategy with such uncertain results? Election interference is not guaranteed to succeed, and the Russians were focused on Ukraine at the time, not the US -- the recent invasion is proof of this.
 * Competence: Ironically, the COMPETENCE page warns us to not use it as a personal attack, lol. One reason I'm writing another lengthy post (which I've been trying to avoid doing), is to prove that I know what I'm talking about.
 * Overall, while I have misbehaved and been tendentious at times, I've mostly acted in good faith. I really wasn't expecting a few small tweaks to set off this textual explosion. BTW, those last few names you pinged I got along with fine, and I don't recognize Bon Courage (no offense to him/her).
 * This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here. I think that's because I've tried to use WP for what it's intended for, sharing knowledge. I can't get into this whole game where you use policies to get your way and control articles, and have to agree with right-think, or get severely punished for wrong-think; the claim made below that I should be indef blocked for a couple one-off controversial edits is an example of the latter. If you want to block me, that's up to you, I wouldn't advise it, but I won't kowtow to anyone either. Let it be known that most every academic/scholar I've conversed with has a very low opinion of WP; perhaps that's because of systemic problems with the culture here, rather than with myself. Xcalibur (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Another dubious edit
And this one. Don't add your own commentary to articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Valjean - I'll admit that the two edits were misguided. In the case of Covid, I was attempting to address an implied logical fallacy; in the case of Russian interference, I'm still not sure if "conspiracy theory" is literal or a term used to reject ideas as false. These were atypical experiments, which I'll have to avoid.
 * Other than my stubbornness in content disputes, this talk-page has a negative bias, especially since some editors would be trigger-happy about warnings -- this applies to Petersmillard/Circumcision and HIV (where I was quite reasonable), and kwami to an extent. In the latter case, I did go to excess, but kwami would warn me whenever I tried out something different with the article, and he himself has been blocked for edit-warring before.
 * You seemed to put alot of stock into that climate discussion, which again was on a noticeboard. I was siding with another editor advocating for coverage of the minority view, and didn't expect it to spiral out of control. I'm not denying climate change, I'm just open to other possibilities, which I did not realize was FRINGE. I haven't even edited climate articles!
 * Overall, I accept that I've been too stubborn, and that my messing around and experimenting doesn't belong here. However, you also jumped to conclusions and assumed the worst, when I'm not as bad as I may seem, and the editors I've had disputes with were not flawless either. I also recall having positive interactions with Paul August, NikkiMaria, and MarchJuly, and many of my edits did not cause trouble. I just want to tell the whole story. Xcalibur (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS- I used to believe that my experimenting/messing around was harmless and acceptable. Now I realize that's not the case, so I can correct that at least. Xcalibur (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

One question about your sources
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? Doug Weller talk 18:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The two edits mentioned above are:
 * 16:42, 14 January 2023 adding unsourced opinion "However, just because one lab origin story is false, doesn't mean they all are, and there is still much ambiguity regarding COVID-19." to COVID-19 misinformation.
 * 03:06, 19 January 2023 adding unsourced claim that the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was a conspiracy theory.
 * The above is sufficient ground for an indefinite block. I'll have to remind myself if I am involved due to the saga at Roman numerals. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, the block would be based on those two issues, not the Roman numeral matter, so you're in the clear. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This contradicts what you said about "the last straw that broke the camel's back". Is the indef block a cumulative penalty for my entire editing history, or is it a draconian response to those two edits (which I'm willing to retract)? You've flip-flopped on this. And as I said, I've tried to improve in response to warnings. Xcalibur (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * LOL @ indef block for a couple one-off, controversial tweaks.
 * Those edits were based on the existing content in those articles, and my own logic/common sense. That might be a violation of SYNTH/OR, but a minor one. As I explained already, the Russian collusion claim is literally a theory about a conspiracy, and unproven. As for Covid, it seems like common sense: the whole topic is shrouded in mystery, and one lab origin story being Soviet/KGB propaganda doesn't disprove every lab origin by extension, which was sort of implied there -- it's simple logic. I'm not making any claims, but there's no clearly described mechanism for a zoonotic origin of Covid, nor are there multiple crossover events and local strains, as you would expect. By comparison, we know exactly how SIV became HIV, and the multiple crossovers/local strains in Africa perfectly fit a zoonotic origin. So yea, it's ambiguous and uncertain.
 * No offense, JohnUniq, but I think you're allowing personal bias to warp your judgment. An indef block for those one-off tweaks is wildly disproportionate.
 * Btw, I never said there was a "standards body" for Roman Numerals, and I never denied variant forms. I said that there's a common style of writing them that took shape over the past two centuries, and the RS describe this in a certain way, with rules/logic (or whatever term you prefer). I avoided commenting on the things you said about me on user pages, because I'm too polite for that sort of thing. Xcalibur (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A few observations:
 * 1) What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? Your edits must be backed by RS. What are they? Provide them now.
 * 2) The indef block would not be "for a couple one-off, controversial tweaks." They are just the log that broke the camel's back after all your disruption in spite of numerous warnings. It has to stop, and warnings or a short block won't stop you. Wikipedia must be protected from you.
 * 3) You wrote: "Those edits were based on the existing content in those articles, and my own logic/common sense." No, not from the existing articles. You have obviously not read the Russian interference article. You are echoing unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. As for the unsourced commentary you added, based on your own logic? That's OR and not based on RS. Even if true, don't do that. All content that is not "the sky is blue, and 99.99999% of all people believe that to be the case" must be based on RS.
 * 4) You make some statements that reveal that you don't have the required competence to vet sources for reliability. That's a fundamental requirement here. You are obviously getting your "information" from unreliable sources and letting those POV influence your editing and comments. None of that is okay here.

I can totally understand an indef block. I see no reason for you to be here. What good are you doing that can't be done by editors who don't constantly create problems? You have been warned many times to no avail. That's an unforgivable sin. Warnings should move you to better behavior, but they haven't. Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources.

"Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland. It is not from RS. Mueller didn't consider criminal "conspiracy" and non-criminal "collusion" to be synonyms, and he explicitly discussed the differences between the words when stating he would only try to prove conspiracy, not collusion. Yet, his investigation documented a big heap of various types of collusion. He concluded that he couldn't prove conspiracy, turned over all the evidence of obstruction to Congress, and stopped there. That doesn't mean the Russians didn't interfere or that Trump didn't aid and abet their efforts. They couldn't own a better useful idiot than Trump, and the Russian people openly claim they elected him. Trump and the GOP can deny what happened, but the Russians know. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? I could dig up sources for those statements, including sources that go further than I did. However, it would be rather pointless, because I don't insist upon those edits. Obviously the prevailing opinion is against them, and I'm willing to drop the matter.
 * The indef block would not be "for a couple one-off, controversial tweaks." They are just the log that broke the camel's back after all your disruption in spite of numerous warnings. That's not what that editor said, though. He recommended an indef block only for those edits, when I haven't been blocked before. Keep in mind, there's an observation bias in effect here, in which the conflicts I've gotten into draw much more attention than all my productive edits.
 * That's OR and not based on RS. Even if true, don't do that. That's fair enough.
 * You make some statements that reveal that you don't have the required competence to vet sources for reliability. There's a difference between beliefs vs competence. I've noticed that certain people assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid and/or evil, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, this is the attitude of bigotry in its original sense.
 * Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources. Again, I'm willing to retract the edits that started this, and I didn't see them as significant at the time. And to reiterate, I'll admit if I take things too far, eg my digest above of the disagreements I've gotten into.
 * "Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland. The two seem to get conflated alot. It also seems like an academic difference, the real issue is: is it significant, or not? To me, it seems like Russia is a scapegoat for the more likely explanation of 2016, which is that half of this country actually follows Trump and believes in his ideals and version of reality.
 * useful idiot You say this, yet he made it all the way to the White House in the face of massive opposition, representing the radical new movement of right-wing populism. I'm not saying Trump is a scholarly intellect like Sowell or Chomsky, I don't get that from him at all, but there's no way he pulled all this off without being a very clever, cunning game-player.
 * Politics aside, the main issue here is a rather draconian response to my edits, when I haven't been blocked before, and have tried to improve from warnings I've gotten. For example, lately I've been largely inactive on Roman Numerals and Decipherment of Rongorongo, where I had my largest conflicts. Xcalibur (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You do need to dig up those sources.
 * You need to separate "Russian interference" from the "Russian collusion" claim and don't think about any effects on the election. The first is proven. The latter is unproven and not disproven. It goes sorta like this: "The Russians interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, but did he conspire with them in that endeavor?" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of checking your userpage, and lol, no offense, but you're a classic case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. You seem to take the word of the DC establishment as gospel. That's not to say they can't be correct, but centers of power do not define reality; in fact, their views should be taken with a grain of salt for that reason. There's this tendency to conflate authoritative sources with reality itself, which I've seen on here before. Usually the truth is somewhere in-between. As for Trump, he maneuvered himself to be the leader of a populist revolt against politics as usual, and his shift towards nationalism/nativism/social conservatism was a pretty huge deal.
 * Anyway, the Trump/covid edits were one-offs, I'll admit they were mistakes, and I retract them. I made those edits spontaneously, without the usual foresight or planning; and they don't fit my usual editing pattern. The other conflicts I've had were mostly from me going a little overboard in content disputes, though in my defense I was also antagonized by other editors. Xcalibur (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You write: "There's this tendency to conflate authoritative sources with reality itself." Right there is the crux of your problem, because at Wikipedia, those sources are by policy the foundation of all we do. Your skepticism of those sources makes you unfit for serious editing. You are more interested inrighting great wrongs and writing "the truth" as you understand it, but we are most interested in WP:Verifiability, not truth. "Truth" is often a matter of personal opinion, so we document only those facts and opinions that are verifiable in reliable sources.
 * You mention my political opinions. They are no secret, but don't do that. It can be seen as dismissive, and thus a clear personal attack:
 * "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."
 * Focus on content. I don't take the "DC establishment" at their word. Both sides in politics are part of that mess. I focus on what RS say. If you ever see my POV creep into an article at the expense of RS, contact me on my talk page, and I'll thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the RS policy, although I can see its limitations. I don't think I was attacking you, just observing a possible source of bias. Accusations of incompetence can also be taken as an attack. I don't think I have serious problems with RGW and TRUTH -- my most significant disputes happened when I was following scholarly journals, and other editors refused to accept them as RS, putting their own views above them, and gatekeeping the article accordingly. If anything, that makes them more unfit by your definition, as opposed to me just thinking critically about the RS.
 * Btw, my talk page is a very biased sample -- usually editors left messages here over disputes, while my constructive edits passed without comment. Also, alot of those "edit-warring" warnings were a bit excessive; if you look closer, I was often trying out different things with an article during a dispute, or doing a single revert with a reason. You seem to have jumped to conclusions about me being some sort of chronic troll, when it's really not that simple.
 * Other than that, I accept your constructive criticism. Xcalibur (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When I make substantial edits, I work directly from RS. But when I made those edits, I was working more from memory of what I'd read, since as I said, I was being a bit careless. Anyway, here are sources for each:
 * Regarding Covid:
 * Regarding Trump: (a bit of overlap with covid on the last link)
 * from BMJ: A conspiracy to label critics as conspiracy theorists ... But mainstream outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post are now treating the lab leak hypothesis as a worthy question, one to be answered with a serious investigation ... scientists who said that far more transparency was necessary to determine the truth of SARS-CoV-2’s origins.
 * from ABC: At times both sides are guilty of doing what the worst conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones do around events like Oklahoma, September 11 and Sandy Hook. They find a single, sinister explanation that confirms a pre-existing view. The drive to impeach Mr Trump for being illegitimately elected before the evidence has been presented has clear echoes of Trump's own disgraceful "birtherism" conspiracy against Mr Obama.
 * I realize that some of these sources, aside from ABC/BMJ, are not accepted as RS. However, I draw from all over the spectrum, ranging from far-right to far-left, in order to get a balanced view.
 * Anyway, as I said, those two edits were a minor lapse, and not consistent with my usual editing pattern. Again, all the issues I've had were from getting carried away with content disputes, when editors rejected my scholarly journal RS. And the only time I've ever used attacks was after being repeatedly attacked first. eta- I'll admit, btw, that I did in fact conflate collusion with interference, and I own up to that. Xcalibur (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You write:
 * "I realize that some of these sources, aside from ABC/BMJ, are not accepted as RS. However, I draw from all over the spectrum, ranging from far-right to far-left, in order to get a balanced view."
 * Can you explain how that attitude toward sources, facts, ethics, and balance might be problematic here and in life generally? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you and the policy pages have done an adequate job of that already! Like I said, I accept your criticism, much of it is valid. I just wanted to give my side of the story. Xcalibur (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making edits to closed discussions
At Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), you continue to make contributions to a thread that has been closed for archiving. Doing so is disruptive. If you need to raise additional issues, please start a new thread instead. Thank you. -- Jayron 32 12:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please remember talk pages are covered. Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I saw that the discussion was collapsed, and thought that action was premature. I also thought only blue box discussions were closed to comments, I didn't realize this applied to collapsed discussions as well. I haven't encountered this before, so pardon me. Xcalibur (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To those concerned, I had another discussion thread closed, somewhat excessively I think. I was a bit delayed in responding again, and I don't like being cut off, so I put a brief comment at the end. I just wanted to provide a conclusion, and made it a closing comment rather than a continuation. Hopefully you'll permit that as an exception. Xcalibur (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see how it is. I thought you'd allow a minor exception, I guess not. Xcalibur (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That editor was overzealous about closing/deleting, which was arguably more disruptive than me tripping over protocol by mistake. There was no real reason for it, I wasn't being excessive, and the discussion should've been allowed to wind down naturally. Xcalibur (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent WP:FRINGE violations pursuant to this ANI discussion. 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:. signed,Rosguill talk 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)