User talk:TheXug

Eastern Monasticism
Would you be kind enough to explain your reversion of my edit to this article? 82.17.146.254 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I accidentally hit rollback. Reverted! TheXug (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply : Hi There. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so i'm not much familiar with rules and regulations. The citation for above edit is available in Olivia Munn's wikipedia page, however I was unable to copy that & paste here. You can check & re-edit the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.206.58 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I had reverted your edit, where you said "On 1000th episode, Actor Alan Thicke Kissed her on the lips after they sang the theme song." while reviewing the recent changes. After reading the following reference (https://www.tvguide.com/news/olivia-munn-aots-1027663/), there was no mention of said act, hence why I reverted the edits. If you are able to find sources for the act, it'd be greatly appreciated if you added it to both articles. Thanks! TheXug (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * lol sry XD TheXug (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

2A00:23C8:3987:DD01:4C92:D05A:78EE:7CC7
Lord Horne

I'm not an expert at editing on here, but I thought Minute Books of the organisation he was head of would be a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3987:DD01:4C92:D05A:78EE:7CC7 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out! While you did cite a fair source, I ask that you refer to the Manual of Style for properly citing it. The formatting you used in your contribution didn't match that of the MoS. Thanks for contributing! TheXug (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice
You've been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User%3ATheXug_reported_by_User%3A2600%3A1012%3AB05D%3A7959%3A89F0%3A1563%3AD9B6%3AE284_%28Result%3A_%29 2600:1012:B05D:7959:89F0:1563:D9B6:E284 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Your recent editing history at 2022 California gubernatorial election 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.Thank you for your work in fighting vandalism but please remember the 3RR which states that you should only revert/redo the same article 3 times in one day.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the conflict has now been resolved. TheXug (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning
I don't understand why you felt entitled to edit war to the point of violating WP:3RR, TheXug. Worse still, in their removal, the IP said remove primary sourcing ..., yet in your subsequent revert, you said Unexplained content removal. What? El_C 23:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What had happened was a major mistake on my part. I hadn't properly read what was being removed. After reviewing the editor's intentions, it is now clear to me what they were. I would also like to refer to the 2nd bullet on the policy list at WP:PRIMARY, which states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I believe that rather than deleting the content in it's entirety, it would've been better to simply find any secondary source which could back up the respected primary source (e.g. a relevant news article). Furthermore, I am aware that I labeled my reverts as "unexplained content removal", which I have no excuse for doing. It was, like a said, a major mistake on my part. I have reviewed the contributions made, and I can now say that I agree with them. However, I also noticed that the contributor referenced WP:NOTDIR. I would like to point out that the candidates featured in the article were there not because it would act as a directory, but because it was newsworthy and notable enough to be featured in the article. This is another point where I made my mistake, as I had not properly reviewed the content that was removed and assumed it was in bad faith. It was not. For my mistakes, I am sorry. This is an incident I can only learn from and will not happen again. Happy Halloween. TheXug (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
On the most expensive photographs in the world. The Justin Aversano piece was sold in the crypto currency ETH and no USD was used to buy it, as Party Bid, the platform in which it was sold, only accepts ETH. If the price is in ETH it does not sit at that current price of $3,781,159 but at current value of 871 ETH = $1,306,500. Should it’s sale price be marked only in ETH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.162.27.6 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)