User talk:MrX/Archive/April-June 2018

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Kyle Kashuv shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am, but perhaps you can explain further, with diffs please.- MrX 🖋 00:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You first. At the article talk page. Where I've been asking you to discuss edits rather than continue to gut the article. Yet, you continue to gut the article and refuse to discuss anything. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing on the talk page and seeking a middle ground (much like the article subject, ironically). I would ask you please not to accuse me of misconduct without diffs. I will not be so tolerant of such in the future.- MrX 🖋 00:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be nice if it were true. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know

I wanted to let you know I discussed a RfC you closed a while back [[1]]. As I said there, I don't agree with the closing reason. At the time I believe you were uninvolved with firearms topics but since you have become involved and I think you, like me, both want to follow policy and also have personal, honest, bias/preferences as to the relative weight material in these articles should get. I was struggling to pick words that expressed my concern without reflecting negatively upon you as an editor. If you want me to change the phrasing please let me know. A nod to @K.e.coffman: who (in no uncertain terms) suggested I may not have totally succeeded in my struggles. Springee (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Springee Thanks for letting me know. As far as I know, I don't edit firearms articles now and certainly didn't in November 2016, other than perhaps vandalism reverts. Given that it's been nearly a year and a half, I doubt that you can challenge my RfC closure now, but if you do, please let me know as I might like to participate in such a discussion.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point I wouldn't request to reopen it. If editors had new arguments I would note that I think the RfC was very close so new arguments would be justification for restarting the discussion. Again, I think we have different views on what weight justifies inclusions but I haven't felt your edits/arguments are any but good faith and based on reasoned reading of policy. Springee (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to reopen it, especially given the amount of time that has passed. If you think consensus is different than what I assessed, you can start a new RfC or request a close review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Please notify me if you do the latter. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to reopen it but if I do or if I see it reopened I'll let you know. Springee (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Comments

Regarding your comments at this AfD, it's bad form to cast aspersions on other editors, including in regard to motivations for nominating an article for deletion. Please keep your personal comments out of your comments - discussing editors in such a manner is never a good idea. If you have something to say about an editor, do it directly, not in a sly, backhanded manner. One is a good faith effort at understanding why someone did what they did, the other is not and only ends up creating a hostile environment. I'll let you decide which is which. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, you've been up my ass all week so how about you go away and leave me alone.- MrX 🖋 00:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Polite warning

You and Irn have been (Personal attack removed) If it continues, I will be going to AN/I with a complaint. This is the only polite warning you will receive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you do that. Or perhaps I will.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Warning

Hello, I'm 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! WP:BLPGROUP. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Time to block this SPA, coming attractions. Stop reverting well-sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-immigrant" isn't in the source but you're restoring it calling it "well-sourced"... I don't know if that's gaslighting or CIR but either way read the source again, and carefully. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User name in the request

MrX, if my memory serves, it's not appropriate to style a section header with a user's name (not even at AN/I), so would you be so kind as to remove my name? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'll remove it you like. I had no idea there was a policy against that.- MrX 🖋 18:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure...my memory doesn't always serve. It's all I can do to find my keys. It wasn't a big deal, MrX...It's just that I'm more of a behind-the-camera kinda gal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? I never heard that - especially not at ANI, where about a quarter of current listings include the user's name. On the rare occasions when I post there, I ALWAYS do - so that people can scan the index and see what's being alleged against who. But I do agree with removing your name from this section heading - partly because it seems like a non-neutral title, implying the discussion was going to be you-against-everybody-else. And you clearly weren't the only one who felt that way. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW bullet 4.3. Mr. Rules Guy to the rescue. Note explicit exception for ANI etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow - learn something new every day! Thank you, Mr. Rules Guy. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Initially, Atsme was the only one who clearly voiced opposition to the content. As far as I know, the heading didn't violate guidelines, but I happily removed Atsme's name when requested, out of respect. There is another editor who has twice edited the heading in a rather brazen attempt to WP:HARRASS. That will be addressed at a noticeboard shortly, and I guarantee, it will include his username in the heading.- MrX 🖋 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, I think their version is much better. "Name removed by request", when it is still obvious from the first sentence who you are talking about, may be in technical compliance with section titling policy, but it seems like kind of a revert-by-doing-it-another-way kind of action. What's wrong with the neutral, informative title they propose? And just a word to the wise - if that's what you are talking about, I don't think that report would get much traction at a noticeboard. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MrX, and thank you, Mandruss Mr. Rules Guy. MrX, I don't think the intent of the other editor was to harrass anyone; rather it was more out of concern for NPOV. It's all good. I'd like to think that when my name is mentioned - be it on a WP section title, a highway billboard, in a postoffice, on a telephone pole, or in the men's restroom - that it serves to bring credibility to an objection/argument/disagreement about NPOV......🍻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't recall asking for your opinion about the heading I chose to give the section that I started. There is a widely respected practice of not screwing with the talk page posts of other editors, except in the case of personal attacks, clear BLP violations, outing, etc. Obviously, this does not fall under any of those exceptions. You should not only know that, but you shouldn't be defending the indefensible behavior of an editor undertaking a clumsy, if not determined, effort to WP:HARRASS, of which the title change is but a small part. - MrX 🖋 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I find this appalling. Cutting the baby in half enables disruption and hogties our best editors. And MrX is no hog. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO bullet 12. For your convenience, that's the one that begins with "Section headings". Mr. Rules Guy is becoming a pain in the ass.
You can claim harassment, but the not screwing with the talk page posts of other editors thing doesn't apply to headings. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Of all the incivility, gaming, disparagement, deception, and disruption on current-events articles, this rises about 1/2 inch up the kiddies' edge of the pool. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

<bigly>To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.</bigly>- MrX 🖋 00:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but thanks. I'll assume you can see this. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

See what? 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant, but it works too. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Hi MrX. I know you are familiar but I urge you to edit neutrally on our biographies of living persons which I have linked for your review. Thank you.--MONGO 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear MONGO, are you serious? You misrepresent a source and you give me a convenient link to WP:BLP. That's a head-scratcher.

You wrote: " Hannity also defended the Trump administration's claim that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the biggest ever, though most sources disagree with that assessment."

Source says: "After the election, Hannity doubled down on his loyalty. He defended the administration's false contention that Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest ever."

Any questions?- MrX 🖋 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry you fail to understand my meaning. I assure you I am only concerned that excessive negativity by editors with a spoken hatred of some persons who then edit our BLPs may do so in a very negative manner. I recommend you read the examples shown at this link of the BLP policy. thank you.--MONGO 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So your implication is that only editors with "approved" ideologies (never mind your obvious problems with hyperbole) are capable of editing neutrally? Yeah, maybe you should brush up on policy. 50.247.43.37 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite of me speaking hatred about a living person, as opposed to discussing well-sourced facts or viewpoints?- MrX 🖋 16:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is but one of many available where you clearly show your personal distain for a person who you actively edit the BLP of. I do not bother to hide my opinions either, but I'm barely active in such areas at all..and when I do make a good faith edit that attempts to be a little less accusatory, you revert it.--MONGO 16:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how an editor can be a better editor because they always keep their opinions to themselves. I hereby state my wholehearted agreement with the comments in that diff, and I am not going to cease editing Trump articles because I have stated it. You will be hard-pressed to find a competent editor who doesn't have strong feelings about Trump one way or the other, and I think the people who you need to be concerned about are those who make it a point to hide those feelings. The question here is not what MrX feels, nor what MrX says, but how MrX edits. If you feel you can show a pattern of POV-pushing, do it at AE. The rest is noise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Was seeking a discussion with MrX, not his fellow partisan fanclub and scared admins hiding behind an IP that is obvious. Is it ok if MrX and I have a discussion? I don't care if he flings a little mud my way...I surely deserve it for something. I have not made any threats or signaled any intentions of taking anyone anywhere. I much, much prefer to discuss calmly than run off to some noticeboard screeching about some one not being perfect or for thinking differently than I.--MONGO 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I would have said precisely the same thing about an open Trump-lover, so your AGF-free "fellow partisan fanclub" smear rings hollow. Other than that, I've said all I need to say here. But, as there are no private discussions on-wiki, don't expect others to keep silent just because you asked for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO: "Disdain" is not a synonym for "hate", in much the same way as your edit to Sean Hannity was not a faithful representation of what The Washington Post wrote. I don't know if these were honest mistakes on your part, or if you intended to mislead. It doesn't really matter because the result is the same.

Make no mistake: I do have disdain for Trump, as is my prerogative. However, I don't hate him (or anyone else), and I find the suggestion that I do to be a rather revealing of your own perspective. I stand by my editing history which is fully in accord with Wikipedia's purpose and principles. I've edited more than twice as many BLPS as you [2][3]. Unlike most of the users who have accused me of violating the BLP policy, I have never been topic banned or sanctioned, except for the single time I was blocked by for making two reverts by a now desysoped user, and as you know, that block was promptly overturned by the community.

I edit a wide variety of subjects that run the gamut from subjects that I have disdain for to subjects that I adore. I have never edited with a COI; I have never edited as a sock; and I have never knowingly edited in a way that would bring discredit or harm to the project. There are many actual BLP violations that I have removed from articles about subjects that I have disdain for, including Donald Trump.

You're way out of order associating Mandruss with some mythological "fellow partisan fanclub" or attributing the IP's comment to a scared admin. Such ad hominems only undermine your credibility. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok...I have to try and help you edit constructively and not destructively and I am sorry you cannot see your own frailties. I shall endeavor to try again if the need arises, but I fear there is no hope. For the record, editing more BLPs is no badge of honor if one is doing so in a manner that renders the piece a hatchet job MrX. Lets not pretend I'm the only one arguing with you about content[4].--MONGO 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps you should not be so generous with your advice, and instead help yourself to faithfully adhere to what sources write rather than what you want them to write. Verifiability and all that.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A healthy, youthful Marcus Aurelius. The last of the Five Good Emperors ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} It's all about perspective. An interesting quote: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” – Marcus Aurelius Preconceived notions and bias also play a significant role in what we perceive to be "truth". There has been a significant paradigm shift in journalism, and it's not all good. WP launched in January 2001, approximately 7 years before objective journalism became opinion journalism. Few changes have been made to our PAGs to adjust for those changes so what we once considered "reliable sources" are not as reliable as they once were because of the opinion factor. Our PAGs suggest that we write what the sources say, and that when it comes to NEWSORG, we should practice sound editorial judgment. The articles we write tell us whether or not sound editorial judgment is overriding bias, and it's pretty obvious with the Trump-related articles that we're lacking. The Media Institute believes media's failure to "adequately explain complex policy issues" became clear in 2008 during the presidential election; a time when the US was in economic distress. The author lays accountability on the editors "who are smarter and tougher and more fair-minded than the reporters who work for them, and owners who care about the editorial product itself and not just the ads the editorial product attracts." And who oversees the editors? You might want to read this NYTimes article. As for Trump's exaggeration of crowd size (and possibly hand size), Factcheck comes closer to NPOV and getting it right...but of course, the material on which some editors will focus will be that which supports their POV, despite the fact that none of the crowd size information was scientifically calculated. Another interesting question/answer in that article: Does all that add up to the most viewed inauguration in history? Maybe, but data necessary to make apples-to-apples comparisons are limited. Do we see any of that information in our articles? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the smartest thing I've said on this subject, I'm sorry to say.
A news organization can't sustain itself by spending much time explaining complex policy issues that are beyond the comprehension—let alone interest—of 80% of the adult population. The fault, dear Atsme, is not in our media, but in ourselves. Life gets a lot easier when you accept that this round of civilization is doomed.
It's an interesting conversation, but it's meta to the topic of this thread and I'd hazard a guess that MrX doesn't care to conduct it on his talk page. You could take it to Village Pump, but one of WP's fundamental problems is that it's impossible to have such a discussion for very long without it being derailed by petty and mindless bickering, one of the many gifts of self-governance and a laissez-faire culture. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I don't know who this Marcus Aurelius character is. He sounds like some alt-right millennial who's taken one too many selfies. Perhaps he's related to Augustus Sol Invictus?

MrX, Marcus is the guy who authored that quote. Trump envied his big hands. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)  

Seriously though, we should not conflate the collective sundry faults of the press with the very clear and present problem of editors misrepresenting sources. That kind of editing has the potential of turning Wikipedia into an outlet for false information. On an article like Sean Hannity, such editing will be quickly caught and corrected, but on a less visited article, the false information can remain for years to the detriment of readers and our own reputation. I can't really influence the press, but I will always do what I can to keep Wikipedia grounded in truth.- MrX 🖋 16:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I recommend lightning rods. Television news is like a lightning flash. It makes a loud noise, lights up everything around it, leaves everything else in darkness and then is suddenly gone. ~ Hodding Carter ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I've moved your log entry to the proper section. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks much NeilN.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

AE

Hey who said I was conservative? Rather presumptuous of you. Also if you are going to mention me on AE, you should probably let me know. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if there were to be an AmPol 3 case at Arbcom, I bet a lot of editors on both sides of the aisle would end up with topic bans. Arbcom do not wield their powers with subtlety. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe.- MrX 🖋 15:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry PackMecEng for assuming that you lean conservative. Would you like me to redact your name from my list of conservative leaning congenial editors?- MrX 🖋 15:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah it's fine, no harm done I was just surprised. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just be sure to leave him on the genial list. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Specifico? I go by dude thank you very much! So much assuming genders here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Le Dude or La Dude? Only your hairdresser knows for sure. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I go with Iel Dude? Or is is On Dude? French is a funny language for genders. The best would be 그 젠체 though. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain...

Hi, MrX... Just curious... as to why you consider this edit a BLP vio. It is sourced to Reuters which WP considers one of the wire services, and it states what the source says - that he made the visit. We're talking about a PUBLICFIGURE, right? How is that different from saying Cohen went to Prague? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Please see my explanation here. The difference is that Cohen is attributed, strongly supported by several sources, and in the proper article. Brennan is not.- MrX 🖋 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought that meeting had to do with this effort? Isn't that what CIA people do? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean this?

"He confirmed that the CIA had set up a special group with the NSA and FBI in late July to investigate the extent of Russian intervention in the presidential election. He briefed congressional leaders on the threat and on 4 August he warned Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the Russian intelligence agency, FSB, in a telephone call to stop the meddling, telling him it would backfire. Bortnikov told Brennan he would pass on the message to Vladmir Putin."
— [6]

A telephone call warning is not at all similar to "making secret visit to Moscow meets [sic] with FSB".- MrX 🖋 21:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok...but wouldn't it have been better to discuss it on the TP before going straight over to AE, or has your patience frazzled at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 17:11, April 25, 2018 (UTC)

No, but thanks for asking.- MrX 🖋 17:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MrX does not get mad, he gets even! PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Damn Skippy!- MrX 🖋 18:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Some history. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Notiyfing

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A discussion you closed

Hi MrX. Back in January, you closed this discussion regarding Formula One constructors' standings tables, with the remark "Closed as consensus to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables as proposed" (my italics). Given that a few different options were explored during the course of the discussion, I was wondering if you can remember whether, when you wrote "as proposed", you meant as per the original proposal, or as per the last option discussed (or something else). I completely understand if you can't remember, given that the discussion was closed over 3 months ago. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Bump. (Not meaning to hassle, but I thought you may not have seen this post - you seem to have been on a bit of a wikibreak when I posted it. Apologies in advance if you had already seen it). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry DH85868993. I'm not sure how I missed this twice. Yes, I was referring to the original proposal. There were some comments that obviously supported one of Tvx1's proposals, but they were ambiguous, so they accrued to the original proposal. If there is still a dispute, I recommend having another RfC to see if there is support for the incremental change that would result in this:

Pos.	Constructor	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
6	Toro Rosso	8	7	12	10	7	6	Ret	8	16	15	7	10	12	4	14	13	10				53
		9	Ret	Ret	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	11	12	14	Ret	Ret	Ret	13

- MrX 🖋 20:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries regarding missing my comment. I just wanted to check because what ended up being implemented was the last option discussed (i.e. as pictured above, without the "No." column) rather than the original proposal (i.e. with the "No." column). There's a new discussion in progress proposing to implement the original proposal - I'm confident it will get sorted out in the fullness of time. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your teamwork. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I would like to nominate MrX for being one of a group of editors that displayed excellent teamwork. Discussions, consultations, deliberations and concessions are the benchmarks of editors working toward a common goal. One of the more challenging editing tasks is to manage and manipulate input into an article that is in flux, an article that's "real life history" is developing daily. Such an article was the recent March For Our Lives. The team of editors, of which MrX was a part, deserve separate individual recognition as Editors of the Week because they came together and worked on the maps, before and after the event, and they did a fantastic job. One need only look at Talk:March For Our Lives#Maps to see the positive interactions that resulted in a timely and quality addition to the encyclopedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Buster7 for your kind recognition, and for being a part of what makes Wikipedia great!- MrX 🖋 14:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Request

Out of courtesy, I'm requesting here that you delete this as a violation of WP:POLEMIC. I'd rather not take the matter further to a noticeboard and would appreciate it if you would simply delete the page. Thanks. And congratulations on your "Editor of the Week" award. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• If MrX is doing this to prepare a case of some sort, it's perfectly fine. Winkelvi, I only glanced at a few diffs, but I sure hope you're not following this editor around in a harassing way. And MrX, congrats indeed. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since his last entry at the laundry list, Drmies. Because so much time has elapsed since then and his last edit more than two weeks ago, that makes the list WP:POLEMIC, not building a case. As the policy on polemic states, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Nearly a month since it was started and three weeks since it was last added to is not timely. The policy further states, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." "Imminent", of course, means "likely to occur at any moment". Three weeks and no more added to the list so obviously, "imminent" is not the case.

"I sure hope you're not following this editor around in a harassing way". I'm not and wasn't even when he started the list, but thanks for your seeming concern. That said, I sure hope you aren't actually defending this laundry list remaining "on the wiki" - especially since its existence is a violation of policy, but also because it serves no benefit to Wikipedia. If he wants to keep the list, he needs to do it on his own computer hard drive, not on Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ha seeming thank you for seeming clearing that seeming up! Drmies (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Headscratcher! I never thought of Drmies as particularly seemly. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

He can cure it by adding this thread. He's really under no obligation to work 'round the clock gathering evidence for due process. He seems to be making good progress, and any complaint will of course be decided solely on its merits. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not inclined to delete the evidence that I've compiled on my unlinked, unannounced, personal user subpage, as I am still working on it. You will recall that I warned you that further violations of our conduct policies would be pursued at a noticeboard. I created the evidence subpage given the very high likelihood that I would need to present it at a noticeboard, imminently. The fact that you combed through my contributions to find the page, examined the diffs, and took issue with it only reinforces the need for such a page. Nowhere on the page are you mentioned by name, so it should be very easy for you to take it off your watchlist and stop reading it. - MrX 🖋 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"The fact that you combed through my contributions to find the page, examined the diffs, and took issue with it only reinforces the need for such a page." You are making a huge assumption, which - when you think about it - ignores WP:AGF. Fact is, two other editors alerted me to the existence of the page just a day after you started it nearly a month ago. I didn't comb through your contributions and wouldn't have known it was there if they hadn't emailed me letting me know it was there. It should also be noted that they emailed me rather than posted in my userspace about it for fear of retaliation. What's more, I have editors emailing me since yesterday about this very discussion thread, telling me I need to be careful because what's transpiring here is going to lead up to me being railroaded with a manufactured block. What does that say to you (or anyone else who might defend the continued existence of this list in Wikipedia, despite policy being very clearly against it)? Now, if you think about it further, since I've known about the page this long, haven't said a word about it, and did not go looking for it to begin with, speaks to the complete opposite of what you are trying to accuse me of at the list: casting aspersions, stalking, and personal attacks. I asked politely for you to remove it based on policy re: WP:POLEMIC, did not personally attack you over it, did not cast aspersions regarding the reason why you have created the list (which also speaks against what you are accusing me of). Policy on the list you have created is clear. As far as I'm concerned, it defies logic why anyone would support allowing it to stand. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you've attracted conspiracy theorists. Pay them no mind. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't make any assumptions or guesses as to who these individuals are. The list would likely surprise you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

All's well that ends well! I'm already surprised. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Any of your fellow travelers who warned you should be thanked, and you should indeed change your behavior so the evidence in that list won't get longer and need to be used. Just sayin'... If you're no longer doing anything wrong, then there's nothing to worry about and you can forget about this. If you insist on remembering, that bodes ill. Just edit constructively, collaboratively, and stay away from controversy, and you'll be fine. No one bothers editors who do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"...you should indeed change your behavior...if you're no longer doing anything wrong...nothing to worry about..." These statements assume the "evidence" is in context and accurately damning, which is equal to me being declared guilty without benefit of "trial". AGF is completely ignored. "...if you insist on remembering...stay away from controversy...no one bothers editors who do that". In other words, I should shut up and ignore a policy violation by an editor because I deserve the list's existence, anyway -- even though it's existence is a policy violation. You realize that's akin to the same logic that vulnerable victims of various forms of assault have had thrown in their faces , right? Doesn't matter if the act perpetrated is illegal because the victim deserved it. They should just shut up and be grateful it wasn't worse or they weren't killed in the process. Oh, and they should be sure to not repeat the behavior that "caused" the illegal assault against them. Plus, never forget: innocent people don't speak up against such assault, doing so only proves you're the one who's really to blame for the whole thing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous (book)

Hi there, I have reverted your edit to Dangerous. If you think I've made a mistake, by all means revert my edit, but could you please go to the talk page and let us know what your issues are exactly with the edit. --2001:8003:5448:9700:2953:EE78:93AC:3B4D (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:MrX/w

User:MrX/w, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:MrX/w during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey MrX, I can see you're (understandably) feeling a bit discouraged at the moment. It looks like the mfd above has become a proxy battleground for partisan editors from the American Politics viper pit. Would you consider taking away their tinder by requesting deletion of the page yourself? I can then follow up and close the mfd as moot. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been closed, with instructions for the time frame in which to use the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh good, thank you. ~Awilley (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

NPA and Civility required

Perhaps you're having a bad day since telling others to fuck off seems out of character for you. Please retract that statement which shows massive lack of good faith.--MONGO 21:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Posted for administrative attention here.--MONGO 00:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• MrX, take it easy--I dig where you're coming from, but as you can see you're just opening yourself up to more complaints. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For keeping a level head and continuing to edit here productively despite the action of others. Calidum 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar and for your thoughtful words, Calidum. I really appreciate it.- MrX 🖋 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I don't agree that we have a neutral version of the material as is. Remember that we are sourcing text to material with a dishonest telling of events (the Daily Beast). That said, I think we can work this out rather than go back and forth on it. Springee (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not just change the source then? It appears that, so far, there is solid consensus for the material as written. I really don't see the need for a NPOV tag, and if you think the paragraph is NPOV you should use an inline tag anyway, not a section tag. The purpose of maintenance tags is to attract editors to the discussion, which you have more-than-adequately done by notifying the RfC participants.- MrX 🖋 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hello. I came here to follow-up on what had happened with User:MrX/w per the closure and see that you requested its deletion a few days ago. I just wanted to thank you for doing that; it spared us at MfD what probably would have been a lot of drama. Happy editing! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

His common sense decisions are among the reasons I continue to hold MrX in high regard despite his rare outbursts and our disagreements. So far, we haven't banned each other from our respective TPs...and I hope it stays that way. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Compassionate727's talk page.
Message added 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

114.75.119.210 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Compassionate727's talk page.
Message added 22:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

114.75.119.210 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't this be made more clear?

This complaint (though I'm not sure this text is what you actually intend to submit) presents difficulties to any admin or arbitrator who might want to understand it. When you pile up a lot of diffs, it is reminiscent of piling up references in an article. It doesn't strengthen the case much. You state that "sampling a few diffs should be compelling". If you expect the reader to sample the diffs, you should be able to select some that you think are typical (or are the best examples) and leave the rest out. I usually don't get involved in this type of enforcement anyway, but I hate to see people spinning their wheels unnecessarily. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look EdJohnston. I have wrestled with how to show a pervasive pattern with fewer diffs and the best I could come up with is sorting the sections by importance. Unlike cases that involve edit warring or incivility, I think fewer diffs would make the situation less clear. I guess if Arbcom asks me to trim the diffs I will try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - MrX 🖋 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If there are no smoking guns, I wonder if you have a case at all. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do, but I guess I will have to leave that up to Arbcom. It's been my experience that in the American politics topic area, a very small minority of editors cause about 80% of the disruption.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration amendment request declined

Hello MrX. The American politics 2 arbitration amendment request filed 28 June 2018 has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in case you did not know

...about this: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well... isn't that interesting?- MrX 🖋 20:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)