User talk:Xkeylimepie

Hi Xkeylimepie! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was really sweet! Thank you! Xkeylimepie (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any 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.

Doug Weller talk 08:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Criticize. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Trial (1962 film), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to add it. Thanks! I responded on your talk page, re-added the content and added the citation. Xkeylimepie (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, George Stevens, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! yes, resubmitting with citation Xkeylimepie (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm CodeTalker. I've had to revert a number of your recent changes because, although you provided a citation, the citation did not directly support the content that you added. For example,

• In Jeffrey Gibson, here you added the statement that "Gibson's work from the Venice Biennale was brought to the The Broad". The source you provided says that Gibson represented the United States at the 60th Venice Biennale, but does not say that his exhibition at the Broad was brought from the Biennale.
• In Mike Kelley (artist), here, you added the statement that "Kelley's final interview by Tulsa Kinney, appeared in Los Angeles-based Artillery Magazine". The source you provided says that there was an interview with Kelley in that magazine, but does not say that it was his final interview.
• In Ron Athey, here, you added the statement that "Athey is known as an activist and thought leader who is regularly sought out for commentary on current developments and issues in culture and contemporary art". The source you provided does not support this at all; it does not contain the terms "activist", "thought leader" or "contemporary art".
• In Marc Maron, here, you added the statement that Maron "focuses on observational comedy". The source you provided does not say that; it merely says "Marc Maron saw that observational comedy can be done by anyone".

Going forward, please take care to ensure that the references you use support the content that you add to articles.

Also, you've added content to multiple articles using The Age of Movies: Selected Writings of Pauline Kael as a source. When you use a book as a source, please include a page number. Readers cannot be expected to search through the entire book to find the part that you are using as a source. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the advice! how do I add the page number when the citation is automatic? regarding the others, I'm pretty sure the content is in the selected sources. I'll double check. Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker the first one regarding Gibson, the Broad lists it directly on the website and I believe the title is the same as at the Biennale, but the broad is not a secondary source. How do you suggest to handle that in cases like this? Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out! Xkeylimepie (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker Re; Kelley -- I found the correct link! i linked to the wrong article. reposting now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xkeylimepie, I still don't think the new source you've provided supports the statement that this was Kelley's "final interview". The closest statement I can find in the source is "I only found out later that our meeting was one of the last loose ends he attended to before he turned to his final act". This does not say that it was his final interview; it does not even say that it was one of his final interviews; it says it was "one of the last loose ends" which is not definite enough to support your content. CodeTalker (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will revise the wording. Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker found the correct link. Looking through all the material I think I just copied and pasted the wrong link again. Thanks for the check and I'll be more careful. Reposting now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xkeylimepie I really don't understand what kind of misunderstanding you're having. You re-added the statement that Athey is "is known as an activist and thought leader who is regularly sought out for commentary on current developments and issues in culture and contemporary art." I looked at the new reference you provided, and again it does not support any part of that statement at all. It does not say he is an "activist", it does not say he is a "thought leader" (whatever that means), it does not say that his is "regularly sought out" for anything, and it does not use the phrase "contemporary art", except in the name of the gallery. It also does not, as far as I can see, say anything that could be legitimately paraphrased as the content that you added. Any content that you add must come from a source. You cannot add your own opinions to an article and then try to find some source that is vaguely related to the content that you added. CodeTalker (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am equally confused by your confusion. The source says "Over the past four decades, the radical performance artist has been at the heart of several tightly knit communities, from the SoCal goth/death rock scene in the early ’80s, to the AIDS Activism movement, and the transgressive body modification underground celebrating queer liberation." Being at the heart of an activist movement, makes you by default an activist unless I'm missing something? Will update the wording though to be more specific. Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalkerregarding Maron, I was attempting to paraphrase. What wording would you be more comfortable with? Xkeylimepie (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be comfortable with adding anything to the Maron article based on the source you provided. It merely contains a quote from Kyle Kinane saying that he thinks that he "read somewhere" that Marc Maron said something. This is incredibly weak sourcing to base anything on. CodeTalker (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and fixing now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The French Connection (film), you may be blocked from editing. The text you inserted was barely an entire sentence, failed to identify who the speaker of the quote was (or where they were quoted) and hardly seems to be significant enough to be included in the lead for the article. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I included a reference, correct? I thought it was an interesting little factoid and hardly what I would consider a disruptive edit like vandalism. It sounds like you would have liked that I expanded the quote. I will do so now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded and removed from the lead! Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's better; thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! Thank you for the guidance. Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions of this authors review/book sales page (not a book citation) to multiple articles in a short time looks like WP:CITESPAM. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. You may not be intending this but you should review the above policies and see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll review the policies and external links guidelines. Is there a better way to add the citation? I started inputting it manually at first and then noticed if I added the link it would create the source "automatically." I'm actually just going through the book and adding content. It's encyclopedic so as you can imagine there is a tremendous amount of content. Also finding films listed in the book that aren't even on the site, so I plan to correct that later as I do a cursory pass first. I have no relation to the author or publishing house. The critic is well regarded, dead, and not well represented in opinions on the various films she wrote about. In addition, the book is decade(s) old so there is no external motivation to promote or advertise it. Xkeylimepie (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Situations (2025 Film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the speedy review. Xkeylimepie (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xkeylimepie! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xkeylimepie: We were not born yesterday. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

—Fortuna, imperatrix 22:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say that admins/editors/etc. are being illegitimate by letting personal biases play into the Zak Smith article, but shouldn't you try to appear legitimate as well? If you tell ArbCom (you can email them privately if you want) exactly who you are, what's your relationship with the subject, and who, if any, is making you do this, we will be more sympathetic towards your cause. Constantly using sockpuppets, meatpuppets, gaming extended-confirmed, etc. is only going to make attitudes towards Zak Smith more biased, if anything. I'm on your side, please, listen. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one would *try* to appear legitimate. I have legitimate concerns that seem to be discounted because I don't have seniority within Wikipedia which seems counter to the ethos of the project. For the record, I am not Mr. Smith. No one is making me do this. I am a party concerned with activism taking over pages. I am in full agreement that Smith should reach out to Arbcom and make his case however there is no way for us to know if this has happened and what the status of that was.

I recently read somewhere that pages on Wikipedia tend to be edited by parties with strong interests. I am a new party here. Perhaps the question should be why all the parties who are invested in keeping the contentious material on the page have spent years doing so. Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to appear legitimate by being honest about your motives. Up until yesterday I believed that you were a new user editing in good faith, although your edits did appear somewhat weird. Almost all of them were adding a sentence or two to hundreds of articles, referenced to one single book. I thought you were a newbie still learning the ropes around here, practicing editing by using that one book. But the INSTANT that you achieved extended confirmed status, you opened an Arbcom case about a highly contentious subject, with a long history of sockpuppets and meatpuppets trying to influence the content. This is not the behavior of a good faith editor; this is the behavior of someone doing busy work to reach extended confirmed so that they are able to do their actual intended action, which is to open the Arbcom case. I no longer believe that you are editing in good faith and I expect most people who look at your edit history will reach the same conclusion. Your best approach at this point would be, as ChildrenWillListen advised, to explain fully and honestly why you have edited this way over the last month. CodeTalker (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are far easier ways to achieve 500 edits and XC user status than by doing legitimate edits and continuing to do them. Kael, as one of the only female critics of her time, is fairly underrepresented in the field of critical opinion on this site. Isn't it our role to expand the project?

I am a fan of the underdog.

I came to the support of Spears (against the Federline memoirs) and yesterday posted on the Pentagon page, the result of a mass amount of press forfeiting their credentials. Regarding Smith, it's a case that should have been brought years ago. Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were zero other ways for you to do so without immediately losing the extended-confirmed permission. You did earn it and it is highly unlikely to be revoked, but regarding your intentions, we'll see whether the activity stays constant or turns out to have been influenced by the 500 edits mark. I have a feeling I can have a look at this account in a year or two and it will either have been blocked for yet another attempt to influence the Zak Smith article or stopped being used for editing because the motivation is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you may have breached the 500 word limit over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. I'm not saying you definitely have and if you have, it would not be me who took any action against you or your filing. My only goal here is to remind you of the 500 word limit. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, will fix now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The case request for Zak Smith was declined by the Committee. Without my clerk hat on, asking for a case after rushing to obtain extended confirmed and after the Committee already ruled on the subject is a tad silly. I hope you continue to contribute in other ways. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I recently received the Kael book as a gift and love her writing so had been spending days editing film reviews which led me to the new Battle/Vineland film leading me to Pynchon which reminded me of Smith and I went to his page and was pretty surprised at the discussion. I saw that there was a recent case request about Smith and saw the motion but didn't realize it was a ruling. So that's why my request was closed?

But yes, trying to pull together a page on the recent pentagon press pass forfeitures. Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. The 500/30 rule for Zak Smith was enacted less than three weeks ago as of time of writing, and was passed in lieu of a full case (which the Arbitrators deemed unnecessary). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Xkeylimepie (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After you had your case on Zak Smith declined by the committee, and knowing the article and talk page are under restrictions, you then went to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to try to relitigate your complaint. This is deeply inappropriate. Rather than block you site-wide, I am imposing a complete WP:TOPICBAN on you in regard to Zak Smith, broadly construed. I want to be completely clear. You are prohibited from editing about or discussing Zak Smith anywhere on en.wikipedia.org. This topic ban is indefinite in duration. As far as I can see, this is the final option available to us before you are blocked site-wide. As per WP:STANDARDSET, while the topic ban is in place indefinitely, you are free to contest it after one year and any uninvolved admin is free to lift it. --Yamla (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

WP:TOPICBAN on Zak Smith, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned as described above

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Yamla (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Slacker13 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13. 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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]