User talk:X1\

Question for administrator
Do I have a "Kick Me" sign on my back?

This feels like I am being harassed. X1\ (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a request for administrative action, so I'm closing the helpme template. If there's a specific administrative task that you need to be performed in relation to the above edits, please feel free to reinstate the request with more details. Yunshui 雲 水 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of what is considered an "administrative task"? X1\ (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrators/Tools lists the various additional things that administrators can do. Beyond that, we're just like every other editor here. Yunshui 雲 水 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Guten Abend,

Do you understand that at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, per page restrictions outlined in Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you are not allowed to reinstate any edits that have been challenged? I have undone this and this revert of yours, which reinstated challenged edits without talk page consensus and included violations of biographies of living persons policy either by citing court documents or stating Adam Schiff's unproved allegation in Wikipedia's voice.

Also, in this edit you reinstated challenged edits saying "I don't see consensus", when in fact, per page restrictions, you need consensus to reinstate challenged edits (see also WP:ONUS). Politrukki (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this location the only place Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is used? Not used at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, for example?  The creator of that Template also seemed to have been having some issues at the time of creation.
 * If you think that Template is valid, why did you put on my Talk page, and not at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections?
 * Why are you writing in German on English wp?
 * PS, you have a curious Username: have you seen fi:Politrukki (redirects to "Komissaari (puna-armeija)"; En redirect of Commissar)?  X1\ (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally there is no reason to link to an edit notice. Coffee logged the page restrictions and added proper editnotices to the article and talk page, but they apparently forgot to add an explanatory talk page notice, which is shown when someone is reading the talk page.
 * If you click an edit link at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you'll be reading instructions transcluded from Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and if you edit the talk page, you'll see longer instructions transcluded from Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
 * If you have read WP:AC/DS, you have already noticed that an editor may be sanctioned if they (a) are aware of DS and (b) violate page restrictions outlined in an editnotice. In other words, the talk page notice is not mandatory. I have asked Coffee to add a talk page notice to the talk page, but they have not responded.
 * "If you think that Template is valid, why did you put on my Talk page, and not at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections?" – The talk page already has an editnotice. Even though any editor could also add American politics AE to the talk page as a notice, in order to avoid wikilawyering, it's better to leave it to an uninvolved administrator, and preferably to the administrator who imposed the restrictions.
 * "Why are you writing in German on English wp?" – For the same reason you did here?
 * "have you seen ..." – I have now. Interesting. And surprising. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Der Kommissar (see above), I see User:Coffee has been blocked / retired; in April. X1\ (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless there is follow-up, I will assume this string is moot, and ignore. X1\ (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC) A year ago, you were recipient no. 2104 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for noticing. Nothing like a good ES.  Thank you for your vigilant contributions.  X1\ (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wayback
The Wayback machine can be very useful, although it doesnt always work. If you see a dead url just pop it in; if the Wayback machine's bots have crawled it, you will get a list of past "snapshots" of the page. If you have a choice of dates, it's usually best to stay closest/just before the retrieval date of the original Wikipedia citation as page content can get updated or change. Re the Tom Elliot article, Wayback didnt have anything at all for the weekly review city page, so it came up blank, but it was easy enough to find another ref for the information. You can also save urls you want to use as refs there, which is also very handy if you suspect a page might get taken down or changed. There are other archive sites, but Wayback has the reputation for being the most reliable. Curdle (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Update- Look at WP:DEADLINK. I've used Archive is before too Curdle (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. ''The banner at the top of this talk page is dishonest for an editor who is apparently trying to re-open old disputes.
 * 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 notice boards.
 * 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.

If you have a specific issue, rather than just asking me whether I want to stir up trouble, be specific.'' Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * see my comment at your talk page. X1\ (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Threatening good faith editors who are fixing disruptive edits is not right and clearly violates AGF. Instead, warn the one making the disruptive edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

custom message
Hi... if you don't know, that template is strictly FYI. It is part of the procedures for "DS", and is fully explained by clicking on the links in the template itself. I placed the same thing on my own page, and will try to make sure recent Climate crisis editors all have one. No biggie. Just a procedural thing. But be sure to read about DS if you don't already know. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)resol

ProPublica RfC
Hi X1\, it looks like you're focusing on the positive end of the reliability spectrum this time! Personally, I would do things a little bit differently here compared to the deprecation RfCs. Now that you're more familiar with starting RfCs, it would be great if you could also consider closing some RfCs once you feel comfortable enough to do so. The requests for closure noticeboard (WP:RFCL or WP:ANRFC) lists all of the elapsed RfCs that are waiting for uninvolved experienced editors to close. The closing instructions (WP:CLOSE) tell you everything you need to get started. There are many RfCs in the backlog, and by closing some of the ones you're not involved in, you help direct the attention of other closers to the RfCs you are involved in (which speeds up their closure). Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about closing discussions. —  Newslinger  talk   00:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The "Wikipedia proposals"  RfC category is usually for proposals that have concrete effects. I tend to tag deprecation RfCs with this category, becuase implementing an edit filter is a concrete measure. However, the "generally reliable..." designation is more of an endorsement rather than a concrete action, and I wouldn't use the "Wikipedia proposals" category for RfCs that don't ask for something like deprecation or blacklisting. Ultimately, there are no strict guidelines for RfC categories, and it's up to you to decide which categories you want to use.
 * 2) After the moratorium RfC, I renamed the "generally reliable" designation to "generally reliable in its areas of expertise" in order to help address the concerns some editors had about the classification being too broad of an endorsement. If you can tighten the wording of the RfC a bit – from "generally reliable" to "generally reliable for news coverage" – that should address this issue. Also, "generally reliable..." RfCs tend to be less well-received than deprecation RfCs, since uncontroversial sources that don't run afoul of WP:RS are presumed to be usable.
 * As I learn more and get more time I will attempt closing some RfCs. X1\ (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, X1\! —  Newslinger  talk   20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One last thing: it looks like leaving a blank  parameter in the rfc tag prevents the RfC from being added to the RfC categories. I've removed them to let  process the tags. These RfCs should receive more attention after they're added to the categories and publicized through the feedback request service. —  Newslinger   talk   08:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * wow, I never would have thought of that happening. I was attempting to make the process faster, as you may have guessed.  I have so much to learn.  X1\ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, that was the first time I saw this issue and I didn't know it would happen, either. You're doing great! —  Newslinger  talk   22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One last thing: it looks like leaving a blank  parameter in the rfc tag prevents the RfC from being added to the RfC categories. I've removed them to let  process the tags. These RfCs should receive more attention after they're added to the categories and publicized through the feedback request service. —  Newslinger   talk   08:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * wow, I never would have thought of that happening. I was attempting to make the process faster, as you may have guessed.  I have so much to learn.  X1\ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, that was the first time I saw this issue and I didn't know it would happen, either. You're doing great! —  Newslinger  talk   22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

NRA 4RR
Please self revert. You are at 4 reverts in the last 24hr. Springee (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Consolidated" organized crime shortcut
User talk:X1\/Consolidated ...

X1\ (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

To do, for RS table
To do at RSN for RSPSOURCES listings X1\ (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * https://factcheck.afp.com
 * missing Newspapers of record

Email notice
Activist (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (before July 2016)


Hello, X1\. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Relevant individuals and organizations to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections


Hello, X1\. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Relevant individuals and organizations to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
If my card 1 or card 2 speaks to you, take it, with best wishes for a new year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

life
AT 612 AND THE GOES AS COMM88OB $] 69.253.167.20 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Rationale for including Dark Money (film) in the See also
Hello, is there a reason as to why you included a link to the Dark Money (film) article in the See also section of Chuck Hunter? I don't see how those two are connected, and have removed that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)