User talk:Xicsies

Welcome!

Hello, Xicsies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Tiptoety 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Biblical edits
You removed sourced citations from an article, which can be seen as vandalism. It seems like you have a strong religious point of view. Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox or promote your own views. Please read up on wikipedia policy and guidelines linked in the above welcome message. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which means you cannot publish your own views on the bible here, but instead must cite reliable, notable source who hold these views. If you have any questions about these things, feel free to ask.-Andrew c [talk] 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

History of money
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Carl.bunderson 08:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Carl.bunderson 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 12:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things
First of all, when using talk pages, remember to sign your comments. We do that here on wikipedia by typing four tildes after each post ( ~ ). Also, it appears you are engaged in an edit war at History of money, and looking at your block log and talk page history, you should know better. I just want to give you a friendly reminder that once a contribution of yours has been reverted in good faith, it is always best to bring up the issue on the talk page instead of re-adding the controversial material without consensus. Talking and working with other editors is the way to build a mutually collaborative encyclopedia. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the bots signing your comments for you, then simply type four tildes ~ after your posts. It is really quite simple! If you don't sign your comments, other users will have no idea who is saying what, and it gets really confusing and hard to keep track of the conversations. If you are going to use wikipedia, then please follow basic procedures like signing comments on talk pages. Really, it is there to help all users. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. / Raven in Orbit (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the other citing sources of the article are more reliable? I don't think so.. For example this one comes from worldnetdaily. Why worldnetdaily is more reliable than Channel 4 and Tony Robinson? Xicsies (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to question the veracity of the worldnetdaily article, even if there is an objectionable amount of advertising on the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about Channel 4 and Tony Robinson? Do you still question their veracity? If not, you admit that maybe 666 can be money. In that case why you reverted History of money article? Xicsies (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I question the veracity of things that appear on television. Any history professor will reak at the idea of his students thinking that something such as The History Channel is a RS. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I will not revert History of Money until the issue is resolved in mark of the beast article. But I think that you are against consensus in "mark of the beast", thats why I am reverting again your changes there .Xicsies (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you start a discussion on it and some users in fact look at the ref and decide it is reliable, I'll go along with you, but not before then. I think it's completely possible for Static to have looked at it and said, oh, there's a ref there, without actually checking it out to see if it is reliable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are other non internet references in the article (for example books). Have you start a discussion on them in order for some users to look at the ref and decide it is reliable. I think not. Then why you ask this to be done for the channel 4 reference? Your argument does not make sense. I am reverting again your change. Xicsies (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't question each reference by default, only those which I find suspect. You opened a discussion on your reference some time ago in the page history, and no one responded at all, and certainly not to defend you. You have a history of being tendentious, and I questioned your reference because you have had problem-edits. If I know a user has made poor edits, I check more closely his other edits. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not my reference! It was there, added by someone else along time ago, and you have removed it. Xicsies (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It is a poor reference, this is the same thing as in the history of money article. If I remember correctly, you weren't the user who originally included the poor content, but you argued about its removal, just as here. It is a poor edit, on its own grounds. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference was not added by me, it was added by User:Jheald at 18 September 2006. . Note that at that time you were already active in the article . You and everyone else preserved the reference for 2 years. Why did you suddenly change your mind and decide to delete it? Is it maybe because I used the reference in order to support the theory that there is an historical view of 666 that identifies it as money? Xicsies (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it has been there for a long time does not mean it is a good edit. We've been through that point before, on other articles. Things slip through the cracks and go unnoticed. If something doesn't turn up in a diff that I see on my watchlist, the chances I will fix/change it are nil. It is a poor reference, and you're skirting that issue. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may think that it is a poor reference, but User:Jheald, User:StaticGull, myself and possibly many of the users that read the article, two years from now, don't think so. You are clearly against consensus. Xicsies (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am hardly clearly against consensus. There is nothing to indicate Static looked at the ref. Jheald has not commented on it, Static has not commented on it, and I am disinclined to trust your judgement. You requested comment on the talk page, and in months, not one person has commented. You are far from having consensus on this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think very few really care about it. In any case, you are more far from having consensus on deleting the reference. Xicsies (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I ll keep inserting the reference from time to time, until the issue is resolved. Xicsies (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You will continue to be reverted, and you know that darn well. You've had chances to get consensus, and you've failed to do so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really searching for consensus between the two of us? In that case I propose you half of the time the reference to appear on the article, and half of the rest time to disappear. Let us also define a time window for that. What do you think about it? Xicsies (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. Either it is a RS and should be kept, or it is not and it is out the window. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, yes it is an RS, everybody except you say so. Xicsies (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one has indicated that it is a reliable source. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article warning notice removal
Please do not remove inline article warning notices while there is an ongoing dispute. The inline notice just allows readers to know that the content is under discussion on the talk page. I have in good faith put up the notice and received some support for my arguments on the talk page. Until the dispute is resolved, the tag should stay up in order to show that the content is under discussion. So again, please do not remove good faith warning notices while there is active talk page discussions underway. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread at No original research/noticeboard concerning our OR dispute. If you want, would you please present a brief summary of your position. It may help if you framed your argument in terms of wikipedia policy (especially NOR, RS, and V). Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Merry Christmas, Xicsies. I hope in the coming year we'll be able to find more common ground. Cheers! Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Number of the Beast, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Cite a source that states that the Patriarchs use the version you're presenting, and cite a source stating that the Patriarch's text is considered better. The Novum Testamentum Graece does not meet Wikipedia's qualifications of "original research," since it is an outside source instead of some editor just insisting that things are the way they say they are without bringing in sources to back up his statements. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)