User talk:X2023X

Welcome!

Hello, X2023X!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lüliang office fire moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lüliang office fire, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Mindanao State University bombing

On 7 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mindanao State University bombing, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Disappearance of Gaynor Lord

The article Disappearance of Gaynor Lord has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not convinced this passes WP:NEWSEVENT; this is not nearly comparable to the Nicola Bulley case and the AFD keep arguments used there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MIDI (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:X2023X reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: ). Thank you. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you falsely claim I broke 3RR? The report you made against me was dismissed because there was nothing wrong with the four recent edits of mine on 2024 that you cited. Two of them were non-revert improvements to the details of the Kerman bombings. Your behaviour often breaks WP:CIVIL. X2023X (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@X2023X this user was blanket reverting my edits with the accusation that I was acting without consensus including edits that would pass any test such as ones with no source that couldn't be substantiated and left me a threatening comment regarding it on my page. I don't think this user is acting in good faith. PaulRKil (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's making a lot of false accusations, writing as though she has authority & is acting like she owns some articles. The only relevant thing she's correct about is that there's been a surge in edits (good & bad) on main year articles recently. However, that always happens in late Dec & early Jan. Those articles need far more good editors, but her hostility will drive them away. She's claiming to be purging the articles of bad editors, but is targeting clearly good editors like us as well. She objects to me removing many entries which include things which are nowhere near important enough to include & claims there's no consensus when there clearly is. I wish she'd put her time, effort & ability into improving articles rather than berating & reporting good editors. I'd consider reporting her, but if I did I'd be accused of being motivated by revenge. X2023X (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged to this situation by 33AB on my talk page. I don't think you're violating 3RR as Daniel Case stated on AN/EW, but your phrasing such as "good editors" as well as your patterns in edit summaries seems more than plausibly similar to Jim Michael 2's phrasing. Considering I wrote an essay decrying the very standard that both Jim and you have seemed to have perpetuate, would I be correct in saying that you two are the same person? If you are, you're violating your TBAN on WP:ER (and the consensus on the talk page for WP:YEARS after an RFC was held on International Notability which rejected it firmly), which could lead to further sanctions - I would advise you if you are to cease editing on years pages and appeal your TBAN at ANI if you would like to remove such restriction. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She shouldn't be making false reports, let alone canvassing other editors including you to back her. I certainly haven't broken 3RR & don't know why she claimed I did; two of the four edits she mentioned certainly weren't reverts.

I'm sure the term 'good editor' is used by many people; I've seen many people use it on various websites. Implying it's a distinctive term used by only one person is strange.

I'm not perpetuating anything other than common-sense editing. Removing transport accidents with death tolls of four & five is correct practice as well as commonplace because such accidents happen every day. They shouldn't be on main year articles, which are for the world's most important events. Likewise the mass shooting I removed whose death toll is two. X2023X (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: am I correct in saying that you and Jim Michael 2 are the same person? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I removed the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, the Perry High School shooting, the Jeffrey Epstein list (whose article has been deleted) & the Java train crash (which has never had an article) from 2024. Do you want them to be on there? If so, why? If not, we agree that my editing to that article is improving it. X2023X (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither an improvement nor a bad edit imho InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know whether or not those things should be included on 2024? You can't work out whether or not the Epstein list should be on 2024, so you can't work out whether or not I was correct to remove it?! X2023X (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of SPI

Hi X2023X – out of courtesy I would like to notify you that if you haven't seen already, @33ABGirl has started an SPI. Thanks, InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but someone should've told me about that sooner so I'd have had time to defend myself. X2023X (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you knew there was a SPI against you, since you mentioned it here on Jan 5. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only found that out by looking at your edits. Without that I'd not have known. You should've told me what you were doing as it directly involved me. Telling involved people is always necessary. I didn't know how to defend myself against the accusation.

Your mission to worsen main year articles by adding things to them which are nowhere near important enough, and being hostile to people who remove them, is making them worse. X2023X (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your mission to worsen main year articles by adding things to them which are nowhere near important enough, and being hostile to people who remove them, is making them worse – see WP:ASPERSIONS. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of evidence of you being hostile to several editors because they rightly disagree with your insistence that minor events be on main year articles. You repeatedly broke WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS & WP:OWN by doing that. You were reported at AN/I for it. X2023X (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed hundreds of good edits here & am clearly an asset to Wikipedia – see WP:YANI. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mere essay & I'm not claiming to be irreplaceable. I'm saying I'm a productive editor, which is clearly true. Being hostile to me because you think I'm someone else is ridiculous. X2023X (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you claiming that you aren't someone else because you copy is ridiculous. It's one of the least sound arguments I've seen second only to maybe me being targeted with the Gish gallop of all Gish gallops. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name isn't Jim.

It's true & relevant that I'm one of millions of people who learn to do many things by copying. That includes sport, jobs, languages & online editing. For the latter, I copy edits, edit summaries, layout, formatting & linking. Don't you learn & improve by copying people who frequently do things? X2023X (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, you seem to be pushing for "international notability" as a standard. Why do you request of that? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When & where are you saying I've done that? X2023X (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You frequently seem to be implying that events should be removed because of domesticity. See Talk:2024, where you comment that on China's patriotic law, "Domestic law changes are commonplace & they're rarely important enough for main year articles.", and "Things such as those, which are nowhere near important enough, are often added to main year articles.". These are unreasonably similar to what you seem to have pushed for in the past (which given that the SPI confirms you are Jim Michael, I will be treating you as unless and until the SPI is overturned). See your comments on the Barbara Walters RFC in 2022: Exclude due to a lack of international notability, and on the Mahsa Amini protests on 2022's archive 9: At what point do they become internationally notable enough? This is mostly a domestic event, but there have been smaller protests in some major cities of other countries. There's been an international reaction, but is it enough?. You seem to be pushing for internationalism. Let me remind you that as visible on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years's archives, the community, when international notability itself was put up for RFC, an WP:AVALANCHE came in favor of rejecting it in favor of a due weight approach which would include domestic events. Why do you wish to exclude domestic events, even if they are important (as determined by DUE and the RFC)? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say frequently, yet only give one example which I wrote.

Very few law changes are on main year articles because they happen all the time & less than 1% are important enough to be there, whether or not you prioritise WP:DUE. You can't think that greatly lengthening main year articles by adding every instance in which any country starts to allow, or abolishes, things such as capital punishment, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. would improve them. Why do you think there are many sub-articles by country & topic, such as 2024 in the United States, 2023 in India, 2022 in politics & 2021 in science?

I'm not going to wade through a load of archives to read discussions that took place before I started editing. I'm only defending my own editing, not that of anyone else. Anyone could say that you have also edited under another name & assume you did unless you can prove otherwise. There are bound to be other WP editors who share your arrogant, confrontational, accusatory style of writing along with an interest in the same topics as you. How would you defend yourself if someone accused you of being another editor whom they have a problem with & refuse to acknowledge or accept that you're not? X2023X (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jim_2_Michael per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jim 2 Michael. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

X2023X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only significant similarity is a focus on current & recent events, which also applies to many other editors. I copied the types of edits & edit summaries of other users, including abbreviations. That's how I've learned to do many things in life. X2023X (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not the only significant similarity. Please carefully reread Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jim 2 Michael/Archive. Yamla (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

X2023X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I copied types of edits as well as edit summaries, formatting etc. from other editors. Copying is how I learn & improve - whether I'm playing a sport, starting a new job or writing/editing online. I didn't intend to impersonate anyone. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would think I'm someone else & I can't see how I can prove I'm not. If the similarities were extreme, one admin assessing this wouldn't have said the accounts were merely possibly related. I have performed hundreds of good edits here & am clearly an asset to Wikipedia. I'm competent; I follow the rules & guidelines. Permanently blocking a helpful, frequent, productive editor doesn't become an advantage due to a few people seeing similarities between me & someone else. None of my edits have harmed the site, so the block is counter-productive as well as unnecessary. If I'm unblocked, I'll further improve my editing as I keep to policies, guidelines & consensuses. X2023X (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address everything discussed in the SPI. Several things are not explained by mere copying. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What exactly isn't explained by copying? Prior to this month I didn't know anything about sockpuppeteering, let alone reports & investigations into it. I don't understand many of the technical terms, so me trying to understand the SPI report is like trying to read something written in a language which I know little of. Without knowing in plain English what the supposed evidence against me is, I don't know how I can effectively defend myself, so I remain presumed guilty & blocked for life, despite being a good editor until that action was taken against me. Blocking a good editor on the basis of an unfounded accusation that I'm someone else is counter-productive & unjustified. X2023X (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Disappearance of Gaynor Lord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Gaynor Lord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Gaynor Lord until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]