User talk:XhainXpert

Welcome!
Hello, XhainXpert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Heather Conley
Hello, XhainXpert and thanks for the work you have put into this article. The work is not finished yet, though. This article makes a huge number of claims about Conley, but almost none of them is supported by any source. Wikipedia has especially tight rules for biographies of living people, particularly about having sources that can verify each claim. So having put all that information in there, your next job is to go back and say where you got it all from. Obviously, these should be reliable sources that are independent of Conley and her organization(s).--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. The State Department and the multi-million organisation which she heads should be deemed reliable sources. I would respectfully ask that you restore the my edits to Heather Conley and allow me to build a vibrant, fact-based, well-sourced archive of knowledge.

Speedy deletion nomination of Heather Conley


A tag has been placed on Heather Conley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.gmfus.org/news/heather-conley-named-next-gmf-president and https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2002/12400.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. John B123 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The need for citations to reliable sources and edit summaries
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. It is not helpful to say "please look them up to verify" to another editor. If you have obtained information from a reliable source then you must know what that source is, so it won't be at all difficult for you to say what it is, but another editor who doesn't know where you got the information may have to search for it, or may not even be able to find it at all. If, on the other hand, you didn't get the information from a reliable source, then obviously you shouldn't be adding it at all. Wikipedia policy is that it is up to the editor who adds material to an article to provide a source, and that material removed because of the absence of a citation to a source must not be restored without providing a source.

On a completely different matter, I notice that none of your edits have edit summaries. Please provide an edit summary giving a brief explanation of what each edit is doing, so that other editors can see what you are doing without having to individually inspect each edit. JBW (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)As I notice, all you do is delete, not add.

January 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Denton County, Texas, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please also take a moment to read WP:USCITIES. Thank you.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC) I have went back through to reestablish all edits which you deleted and sourced them. I do not find your disruptive deletions constructive. If you continue to police my content-- which does not seem to be in good faith -- its ultimate effect might be that I give this new endeavour up.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Gronk_Oz. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. ''The History of every change to every page is publically visible, so your vandalism to my User page is not anonymous and it's not hidden. If you have any issues with any of my actions then I encourage you to discuss them, not to resort to vandalism.'' Gronk Oz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC) I would contest the assertion of vandalism -- the experience with three users has not been pleasant and inconsistent with Wikipedia rules that I have read. Two of the three have cited blocking policies to me. It feels like bullying.


 * I apologise to both Gronk Oz and Magnolia677. As a new user, I did not realise it was common practice to selectively enforce Wikipedia rules and, at times, delete accurate content in its entirety rather than help to enhance it. I am learning a good deal about the spirit of the community, its users, rules and enforcement. I really appreciate both of your helpful input. They are lessons I will take with me as I continue. I would flag for you both the following WP:POORLY under "Invalid reasons to delete." I might also be useful for you both.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out to you several times, I had absolutely nothing to do with that deletion. Similarly,  had no role in deleting your article.  I simply offered suggestions to improve the article.  I tried to explain the reason it was deleted and I made suggestions how to re-create it in a way that would stick.  And in return you tried to sabotage my User page.  I'm going to give this one last try:
 * Copyright material cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, and there is a legal obligation to remove it.
 * One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that information needs to be "verifiable": that is, "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". When any editor adds information, the onus is on that editor to provide the source where the information came from.
 * As a new editor, you are not expected to know all the rules. But once they are pointed out to you, you are expected to follow them.
 * If you disagree with a decision, such as that deletion, then you are welcome to discuss it with the relevant person. It is not very helpful to complain about it to other people who were not involved.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

talk I appreciate your response. I now feel you are acting in good faith. I hope all will act in a constructive and gracious spirit -- lifting up (and contributing) and not tearing down (and deleting). That said, deleted all of my accurate contributions to my home town, home county, and multiple subpages for a different context - and according to the community rules - illegitimate reason. The two are not related.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Denton County, Texas. ''You reverted an edit, to add unsourced demographic data back into the article, and continue to add unsourced content to the "notable people" section. Please stop your disruptive editing.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! XhainXpert (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced content
You seem to be struggling with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and with citing sources.

Simply, when adding text to Wikipedia, it needs to be verifiable, which is typically accomplished by adding a reliable source. Doing so maintains the high quality expected by Wikipedia users, and makes Wikipedia a reliable source for users.

When another editor challenges an unsourced edit, this means that the editor who added the text needs to find a source to support it. Continuing to add the same text back into the article without a source is highly disruptive.

First, at Shady Shores, Texas, I reverted your addition of unsourced text, and you reverted my edit, and added the following (this time with sources):


 * "The town was long anchored by Cielo Ranch, a large private estate located on a peninsula owned by millionaire, right wing radio mogul and drive-in movie chain owner, Gordon McLendon. The ranch featured a full lot stage of a Western Town and was used in John Wayne movies as well as two episodes of Walker, Texas Ranger in the nineties. McClendon, himself, produced, two B-movies in the late fifties, both of which were filmed in and around Shady Shores."

But when another user clicks on your sources, they quickly discover that they support absolutely NONE of the text you added. Whether this was done as a ruse, or whether you really felt those sources supported the text, only you will know.

Second, you have been edit warring at Denton County, Texas, over the addition of two names to the "notable people" section, Dick Armey and Henry Lee Lucas. To support your edits, you added this source to support Dick Armey, and this source to support Henry Lee Lucas. However, neither source supports that either of these people ever lived in Denton County (I was able to find this source which supports that Armey lives in Bartonville, Texas, which is within the county).

I strongly urge you to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and refrain from adding unsourced content to articles and reverting editors who remove your unsourced content.

I am also requesting that you remove Henry Lee Lucas from the Denton County article until a reliable source is found.

Thank you for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, XhainXpert. (Here after seeing the noticeboard section, including your response there, and having a look at the Shady Shores Cielo Ranch issue.) Thank you for trying to help us with articles on places you know. Since you've run into trouble citing things, I had a look for usable sources on Cielo Ranch, and found the D magazine article, but unfortunately it doesn't say the ranch was in Shady Shores. Looking to nail that down, I tumbled down a rabbit hole of real estate pages and struck out at Texas Monthly. (We can't cite forum posts.) Your second reference, "Duck Inn may duck out by year end", from the Denton Record-Chronicle and published in the Dallas Morning News in 2007, does locate the ranch in Shady Shores, in its very last paragraph. It also mentions Hollywood. Unfortunately I believe putting the two together would be synthesis, and it certainly amounts to undue weight, since the Shady Shores location isn't even mentioned in the article that's about the filming at the ranch, and in the second article it's just a throwaway mention; nowhere is it stated that the ranch was the center of the community. A source explicitly saying it was important to Shady Shores would need to be found (maybe there's something in a local paper from when the ranch was sold for redevelopment or when the housing was being promoted; that's the kind of thing I'd hoped would turn up, but I might need a subscription to the Morning News or a rival, and I assume you have one and looked), and it would need to be a briefer point than you made it, because we have Gordon McLendon (where, by the way, the ranch is only mentioned as his deathplace, and not named, and in the infobox his death is localized in Lake Dallas), and his filming mainly belongs in that article. Also ... Wikipedia has to be very strict about copyright, so we avoid citing copyright-violating sources. I'm not sure, but I personally avoid linking to both Pressreader and Issuu on these grounds. It's much better to find the original publication online, although I sometimes just cite the article with no URL (offline sources are allowed) and include a hidden note naming the website where I read it.
 * The underlying problem, as I think you are aware, is that we're not supposed to have uncited information in articles (the principle of "verifiability"). If an addition is challenged, the onus is on the person(s) wanting it to be in the article to find a source, so no, adding a "citation needed" tag instead is not recommended, it would be a big courtesy and meanwhile it's possible the person who added the point was mistaken and the reader is getting misled. On 's talk page, you've cited an essay about overzealous deletion (not one I've seen before, by the way; we have many essays); almost everything it says is about articles (which is what notability applies to), not what to include within an article. What you're running up against is the need for disputed additions to be referenced by the editor seeking to add them and the need to show that the information merits inclusion in that particular article. Apologies for all the links to policies and guidelines, but I wanted to set things in context since you had yourself referred to policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem, as I think you are aware, is that we're not supposed to have uncited information in articles (the principle of "verifiability"). If an addition is challenged, the onus is on the person(s) wanting it to be in the article to find a source, so no, adding a "citation needed" tag instead is not recommended, it would be a big courtesy and meanwhile it's possible the person who added the point was mistaken and the reader is getting misled. On 's talk page, you've cited an essay about overzealous deletion (not one I've seen before, by the way; we have many essays); almost everything it says is about articles (which is what notability applies to), not what to include within an article. What you're running up against is the need for disputed additions to be referenced by the editor seeking to add them and the need to show that the information merits inclusion in that particular article. Apologies for all the links to policies and guidelines, but I wanted to set things in context since you had yourself referred to policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A question about a removal of content from an article
Why did you remove material which is supported by a reference in this edit? (Also, I remind you that you should be using edit summaries. If you did so then such questions about why you make particular edits would be less likely to be necessary.) JBW (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC). - Apologies .. I didn't notice that you had left the reference to OSF which had been removed. The Bosch Foundation ceased its funding of the Center for Eastern Europe and Russia in March 2021 but there was no public source announcing the termination of funding, only of what they are funding in the future. So if you would like to leave it you are welcome to. XhainXpert (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And why did you make this edit, which removed a reliable source and replaced it with a source which does not support the edit? I removed your source for a reason...because it does not support your edit.  Then I went looking for one that does.  Instead of thanking me, you revert the edit and add back your bogus source.  You must stop this disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC) My removal was based rather on the edit to mention Dick Armey as "politician" rather than as "Former House Majority leader and architect of the Contract with America." if you'd like, please feel free to include your source as well as that more enriched definition which provides more context has to his merit as a "notable person" beyond just stating that he is a "politician." I am still confused about your other edits. XhainXpert (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources for notable people
I see that you've added something about the so-called Erich family curse. That's in the Von Erich family but the problem is that there's no source for it. I think it's almost certainly correct, but the editor who added it should have sourced it. The thing is, that sort of statement could have been a hoax added as a joke by someone, and propagating it would obviously be unwise. I'm going to discuss this with the editor who added it. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome
Hello, as a kind gesture I wanted to wish you a very warm welcome back to Wikipedia. I see you have had a little bit of tumultuous return that I am hopeful is cleared up. Magnolia is a phenomenal editor, as is Doug. I'm thankful to JBW for clarifying things in the AN/I discussion and it seems to have calmed everything and everyone. Please don't think too harshly about the editors you have interacted with since your return here. I think you are all very passionate about your views, as am I, and it started a declining spiral that got more and more negative the further it went. It is all too easy to happen, even when both parties are assuming good faith on principle. If you ever need help with anything there are so many great editors to ask but you can feel free to visit my talk page and ask as well. I am glad you have returned again and I wish you nothing but good fortunes as you continue to edit here. -- A Rose Wolf  16:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)