User talk:Xfhxzf

Welcome!

Hello, Xfhxzf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Gay Byrne. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~ Ablaze (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without a reliable source as a reference are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Toddst1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Daddy Yankee have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Puerto Rico is not a nation. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at December 2, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at September 16. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here

You've made a couple of dozen edits to Wikipedia and so far, almost all of them have been reverted for all the right reasons. The ones that were not reverted were merely cosmetic. Let me be blunt. If you keep this up, you will be quickly blocked from editing.

Instead, please take the time to follow the links in the bulleted list above in the welcome message and try to figure out how to contribute in a constructive manner in line with how we do things here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR

Having seen your recent edit at April 19, which someone else has had to clean up, I suggest you read WP:CIR before saving any further edits. Please also heed the advice given to you in the posts above. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at December 13, you may be blocked from editing. On this and other pages, use of unreliable sources such as Twitter and Instagram is unacceptable. Please read WP:RS and ensure that all citations are taken from reliable sources in future. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies for the disruptive editing. I promise that all not all sources are from Twitter or Instagram, I'll look for other and better sources, when I make future edits. Have a good day. Xfhxzf (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritynetworth.com as a source

Hi Xfhxzf . I noticed that you used celebritynetworth.com as a source for biographical information in January 17[1]. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal, I've have already been reviewing WP:RSP for a while now, but haven't yet reviewed WP:RSN. and I've made plenty of edits on other pages and few edits on the same page to fix up some grammar. I've kinda forgot about that edit I made (like usual with other article's because I was busy editing other articles. Every time I notice one of my edits have been reverted, I would just restore it with a different source. Having read WP:RSP, Rotten Tomatoes is considered an acceptable source, so I'll just use that. Xfhxzf (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia ZA Annual General Meeting 2021

This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.

  • Time: Saturday, 25 September 2021, starts at 10:00 to 16:00. With intermission at 13:00
  • Location: held digitally online this link

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luke Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbank. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unrelated/trivial material to articles

Information icon 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. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I could agree about how most celebrity don’t have any relation with other celebrities, simply because they die on same day. But as for the two rappers, they land in a certain category. They’re both rappers killed on the same day. And even it posted on sources. So they kinda do have ties. Xfhxzf (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please move on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Catch Me If You Can, you may be blocked from editing. I'd ordinarily assume more good-faith here, but you've been warned multiple times about adding information to articles without providing a source. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Citations needed, especially for small details, like pointing the unincluded genre of the film? Fine. Xfhxzf (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely valid for editors to question the basis you used to determine the genres you placed in the lead for a film, especially when many editors in good faith apply genres seemingly based more on their own judgment than on what reliable sources have said. I would also note that I'm not certain that RT is a good source to use for genre determinations (I prefer AllMovie (which does not classify the film as a comedy) or AFI or BFI), but as I believe you're editing in good faith, I'll leave it to other editors to formally challenge that. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 #2

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Wahlberg. 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. Restoring poor grammar is a very confusing revert on your part. Please refrain from doing so. TylerBurden (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you restored through your revert: ″Wahlberg starting dating Rhea Durham″. You changed this from your previous (also ungrammatical) ″Wahlberg had been a relationship with″. I am not sure what your first language is, but that is not correct grammar. The current ″Wahlberg had been in a relationship with Rhea Durham since 2001, and they married on August 1, 2009″ is a grammar corrected version of the text that you added, which otherwise was fine. Just to make it clear what the issue is. TylerBurden (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden. Nothing about my edits on Mark Wahlberg were "disruptive" or "ungrammatical", and nor am I here to edit war. It was me who made the edit about his relationship in the first place, not you. And neither of those examples who brought are ungrammatical. "Wahlberg starting dating in Rhea Durham in 2001" and "Wahlberg started a relationship with Rhea Durham in 2001" is not ungrammatical, it's just how you prefer it. "Started (or began) a relationship in 20XX (YEAR), and later married in Month DD, 20XX" is better detail, because it makes more sense. When it "had been a relationship since 20XX", that means it's a long term domestic partnership, it may not be ungrammatical, but it dosen't. So no, it's not ungrammatical. But if that's how you want it to be, then so be it, because I have no interest in arguing about it. Xfhxzf (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring poor grammar is disruptive. It's not about preference, ″Wahlberg starting dating Rhea Durham″ is not at all grammatically correct, the correct word would be ″started″. You didn't write that second part either, you wrote ″Wahlberg had been a relationship with″. So you were saying Wahlberg had been a relationship, he is a person, not a relationship. But if you refuse to see your own mistakes, and instead prefer to be objectively wrong, then go ahead. Just don't get upset when people correct you. TylerBurden (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. I get it. I typed "starting", not starting. So what? "Started" is what I meant, and typed "starting" by mistake. It was a typo, not poor grammar. About the second, "Wahlberg had been in a relationship with Rhea Durham", fine, I can see that now, because I forgot the word 'in'. But as for the first part, that was an overestimation. You could have been more clear about what the deal was. Since you noticed the mistake before I did, you could have repaired the typo yourself (I'm not saying you had to, but you could've been more clear), or come to me and explain that it was a typo. It would've been more efficient than to overestimate and make it about 'poor grammar'. Xfhxzf (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was poor grammar, that is not meant as an insult, it is just objectively what it was. You also defended it and didn't even admit it wasn't correct until now, so that doesn't exactly come across as making typos. It really doesn't matter at this point, it has been fixed and the sentence is now correct. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you may have been correct about the spelling errors. But that doesn't mean I wasn't. You may have been correct about how to point out poor grammar, but that's not how I handled that. All I stated was that you could have used a different approach. That's all. Have a good day. Xfhxzf (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 29

Hi there, there were a few problems with your latest edit to this page:

  • Dinah Shore entry requires an inline citation as per WP:DOYCITE
  • James Ogilvy entry also requires an inline citation
  • Suanne Braun entry also requires an inline citation
  • Headings are fixed as per WP:DOYSTYLE

Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only added Tony Robbins. That's it. I don't know how this happened. Thanks for the reminder, though. Xfhxzf (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]