User talk:XP-93

"Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."
Please read WP:AGF before you make anymore comments on editors. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If I used Wikipedia poorly, I apologise. Could you please direct me to the specific instance to which you refer? Thanks! XP-93 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Move reverted.
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Émile Bernard has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. bd2412 T 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; I have followed the procedure you outlined. Appreciate the help. Cheers! XP-93 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please stop restoring Church Hill, Sydney. We do not create articles on individual, tiny localities within existing suburbs or other areas unless there is significant evidence of notability and enough content to justify a standalone article. It is standard policy and practice in Wikipedia to create articles and split out content only when there is sufficient content to justify a standalone article. When splitting out articles we also consider the readable prose size of the parent article, in this case Sydney central business district which has, at this time, 8,408 bytes of readable prose which is well below WP:SIZESPLIT's "Length alone does not justify division" "boundary" of 40kB. As was explained in previous reversions, any content regarding Church Hill should be added to Sydney central business district until such time as a valid case can be made to split the content out. That case does not exist yet. Note that, as the editor wishing to restore the article, the burden is on you to make that case, not on others to justify redirecting the inappropriate article. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, until you have made that case and successfully gained consensus to split the content to Church Hill, Sydney, the status quo remains, i.e. the article remains redirected. Please also note that the tag you left on my talk page is inappropriate. That deals with a move and no move was made. The article was redirected, which is a different process. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. XP-93 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for recent disruptive edits coming from my account; my account was compromised. I have updated my password. Apologies again! XP-93 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And we've blocked your compromised account. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)