User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2015

4RR

Excluding a revert of an IP and a minor revert, you are now at 4RR in under 24 hours on the Scalise article. You might wish to consider stepping away for a day or so as a result. Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I certainly did not intend to edit war, and I don't think I have crossed 3RR, but I may have missed something. Would you be so kind as to provide diffs to four reverts that I have made in a 24 hour period? Many thanks.- Mr X 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 16:59 et seq
[2] 19:40
[3] 20:08 et seq
[4] 21:02
[5] 23:40

Seems to add up to 4RR in under 7 hours. And your edit [6] at 15:38 on 30 Dec makes 5RR in 32 hours. I did not count your edits which did not affect prior recent edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious Collect?

Yes, this is a revert, although not a wholesale one.
This is adding new content (sources), not reverting. However, you did subsequently revert my edit here.
This one is especially absurd. I corrected a title in a cite, changed the date format on cites that I previously added, and I added information to the cites that I previously added.
Again, this is adding new content. Why would you ever think this is a revert?
This trivial change of your grammar error from "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded leader David Duke." to "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded by David Duke.", in practice this would not count as a revert, and it certainly isn't edit warring.

I'm deeply troubled that you would raise this issue with me. Essentially, there is one revert in the diffs you listed. I suspect that you wish this to have a chilling effect to keep me from editing Mr. Scalise's biography. Or perhaps it is meant to teach me a lesson for warning you of your own unambiguous edit warring. In either case, I believe it's petty and vexatious, and indicative of an obvious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that I've observed in you for several years.

Collect, please consider this a good faith warning to stop this nonsense and start editing collaboratively; stop edit warring; and stop twisting policies and wikilawyering to suit whatever personal agenda you have. If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to escalate these issues, as I believe they are ultimately harmful to the project. Thank you.- Mr X 13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was tripped once on a "one letter change" and if you read WP:EW it does indeed say that even a single letter may be counted as a "revert". Cheers -- Hold yourself to the same standards to which you wish to hold others. Meanwhile I suggest that you recognize that my note was polite and not a template - which I trust you noted but forgot to mention. Collect (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your polite warning, however, you have not addressed the substance of my rebuttal to your accusation. If we have admins who are blocking people for changing one letter (assuming it doesn't materially change meaning), then that's a pretty clear abuse of their authority and a disregard for the purpose of WP:EW which is to encourage collaborative editing and discourage disruption.

If you sincerely believe that I was edit warring, I implore you to open a case at WP:EW/N or WP:ANI, because if my edits on Steve Scalise are actually considered edit warring, then I will no longer be contributing to this project. Best.- Mr X 13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

Making note of the fact that my request for a retraction, explanation or action was met with a curt dismissal.- Mr X 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Thank you.- Mr X 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the WP:AE posting as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MrX Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein the notice above was made by using the ds/alert|BLP template subst, but I wrote BLP rather than blp for the argument to the template. I have updated the alert, so the notice now correctly points to the decision. That template links to a special edit confirmatoin window asking to make sure you aren't duplicating notices. I wonder if it would be possible to make the template also check for an incorrect argument somehow. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

blpsps

Replying here so as to not clutter the AE post. The very first word of WP:BLPSPS is "Never". That seems pretty hard and fast to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in my comment "WP:BLPSPS advises against using blogs as BLP sources, however it was my recollection that this was not a hard rule,..." that would lead you to believe that I don't grasp that at this point? We shouldn't castigate people for making honest mistakes, especially after they admit such.- Mr X 18:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not meaning to castigate, I interpreted your statement to mean you still held that opinion that it wasn't a hard and fast rule, so I was trying to clarify. I think its likely neither of our reports are going to go anywhere. I hope we can continue to work together productively in the article.

My main issue with the article is this. Imagine this was something about Obama, that an anonymous poster put on a marxist website saying obama did something a decade ago, then a random blog (conservative treehouse?) picked it up, and then that was echoed out by Fox, NRO and other conservative media. What would your argument be about the ultimate sourcing of this and how that affects the entirety of the issue.

For a (real) analogous issue, how much coverage does Obama launching his Senate career from the house of a terrorist get in his article? Oh, I think the answer is none, yet that was also covered by numerous reliable sources. (And yes there are extenuating circumstances and people who disagree on characterization. Just like this issue)

I'm not saying we shouldn't cover this incident. But there is a pretty clear double standard on whats notable/reliable for a conservative vs whats notable/reliable for a liberal, and it shouldn't dominate the article like it does now. It needs to get trimmed to 2-3 sentences. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you a valuable editor and would like us to be able to edit collaboratively. You tend to be considerable more aggressive with reverting than me, which makes it less likely that my edits stick. I would be willing to retract the 3RR/N report if you would agree to limit yourself to no more than one revert in a 24 hour period, of any non-vandalism edit made in the previous seven days. I would of course agree to hold myself to the same restriction.

FWIW, I agree that there is a systemic bias with regard to conservative viewpoints on Wikipedia, which results in somewhat of a double standard. The way to change that is with solid reasoning, consensus building, and compromise. Anyway, let me know what you think of a mutual 1RR restriction on this article for, let's say, the next 30 days.- Mr X 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a general 1RR, or a "Azrel-style" specific edit 1RR? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Here would be the rules:

The restriction applies to Steve Scalise
Only one non-minor revert (with the sole exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism) is allowed in any rolling 24 hour period
A revert counts as any edit which removes, substantially changes, or alters the meaning of any edit made by any editor in the previous 7 days (168 hours)
Fixing grammar/spelling/punctuation, formatting, fixing refs, and other gnomish edits do not count as revert (removing entire citations counts as revert)
The 1RR restriction would end until 00:00 GMT on the 31st day from when we agree on this
Proxy editing is obviously not allowed
The restriction can be lifted, or extended, at any time, by unanimous mutual agreement
Violation may be reported for admin action

You in?- Mr X 19:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will notify EW/N.- Mr X 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for writing Hügelkultur! Bananasoldier (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for the cookie!- Mr X 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

Hello, MrX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is a medical examiner's report a reliable source for a cause of death?.The discussion is about the topic Death of Eric Garner. Thank you. --Dyrnych (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

Please stop gaming the system. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me?- Mr X 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable sources?

Why did you put that warning on the page; Skinny Molly? Wiki Elvis (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a warning, it's a cleanup notice. Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article.

I placed it because some of the article's sources don't quite meet our standard for reliability (see WP:RS). For example last.fm is a self-published source. Several are commercial websites, so of course their reviews are somewhat suspect. Some appear to be blogs, and some seem to merely exist to promote certain artists, possibly generated from press releases. Anyway, it's not a substantial issue, but a few more solid sources would be helpful. Here is one source that would probably be considered reliable. and possibly this one. - Mr X 14:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Request

Hi MrX. This is a courtesy message to advise that your request for clarification on the American politics case has been closed, and archived here. If you haven't already, please familiarise yourself with the arbs' discussion. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Tchaliburton's talk page.
Message added 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article I created earlier

Hello there,

I got your message about me creating that article about List of offenders executed in the United States in 2015. I saw that you said it may not confirm to Wikipedia's guidelines. I also want to say I'm sorry if I did violate any rule while I made the article. Let me tell you about it. I don't know if you know it, but today was someone's execution, and I made that article because it was the first execution of 2015, and I wanted to get the article created before someone else did. Again, I do say I am sorry if I did violate a rule. I am a little new to this.--Bradley1679 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK—it's not a problem. The main reason for my message was to provide you with a link to the guidelines for creating new articles, as well as links to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The main thing is that you need sources, especially when living people are involved (no pun intended).- Mr X 02:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peru women's national basketball team

Can you please explain why you think this might be a hoax? The new user has created several articles, templates, etc., all apparently revolving around the same thing. If this is all bogus, then the situation needs to be addressed beyond just one or two articles tagged for deletion. I'm assuming FIBA Americas is a reliable source, although I confess my knowledge about sports is next to nil.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not seem to have anything to do with the Peru/Columbia/Ecuador women's national basket ball team. Call it a gut instinct, but I suspect that the user who created the articles is this user Unfortunately, I have limited time right now to fully investigate.- Mr X 17:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the SPI and am not familiar with that particular master. However, the Peruvian source seems to support the article. That's the only one I really looked at. The source starts off talking about the men's basketball team, but lower down it mentions the women's.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it now. I've reverted myself.- Mr X 20:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by TransporterMan (TALK) (chairperson) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the response to this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Breitbart_again . I was going to go back and inform everyone that responded to that thread, but that might be overkill. But that is why.Casprings (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Since I'm not involved in the article, I'm going to sit this one out.- Mr X 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fag Army logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fag Army logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bresch

Hi Mr. X. I noticed that you were active on the BLP noticeboard and was wondering if you could chime in on an issue regarding this page. I am affiliated with the article-subject. Currently almost all of Wikipedia's content on Bresch is regarding a controversy, which also has its own page. I raised the issue here on the BLP noticeboard. While there seems to be consensus the controversy is excessive (also here), no actual edits have taken place and I suspect it will soon be archived off the board without action. If you could take a look it would be greatly appreciated! CorporateM (Talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. The controversy section is too large compared with the rest of the bio. Your draft seems to be an improvement overall. It sounds like you will have to discuss the content piece by piece on the talk page in order to gain support for your copy edits.- Mr X 02:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I had suggested on the Talk page was implementing the majority of my draft and leaving the controversy separate for individual discussion. Does that sound ok? Nomoskedasticity, who I believe originally authored the excessive controversy, hasn't responded to that suggestion for over a week. I kinda thought he/she might have been waiting for input from others, like FreeRange who commented, but said they were too busy to get more involved. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds OK to me. I am also too thinly spread to get involved in the article.- Mr X 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing visual info from an archived TV episode

Hi MrX, Another day, another question. I'm currently working on fixing up the article on Mary Catherine Lamb, and one of the best sources for otherwise obscure info about her is a Public Broadcasting episode which has been archived online. I understand, of course, that anything we hear during the video can be cited, but I'm wondering about citing what we see. This is especially important in the case of Mary Catherine, an artist whose entire living space reflected her artistic interests. So, for example, since the video shows her workroom with its many shelves and drawers full of the fabric pieces and findings she turned into quilts, would it be acceptable to say in the article, "Mary Catherine's attic workroom was packed with vintage fabrics and findings of every kind which she used to make her quilts" and then cite the video? In other words, can we use what we see even if it isn't described in words? Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this! Ailemadrah (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ailemadrah. I'm not certain, but I would think that you describing what you saw on the video may be considered original research. In the example you raise, it would probably be OK (per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BLUE) to say that "Mary Catherine's attic workroom contains fabrics and findings which she used to make her quilts", if the video identifies the room as an attic workroom and you see here assembling quilts in there. However, in your construct, "packed" is an opinion (yours). "Finding of every kind" is not really encyclopedic wording. It would be better to say "a variety of findings". "Vintage fabrics" could be a problem, unless it can supported by another source.- Mr X 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you, as always. Ailemadrah (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leelah's Law

30 days?! When the hell are discussions required to stay open for 30 days?! Standard deletion discussion length is 7 days, and I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open longer than people are commenting. I know very well there is a discussion going on, as I started it. But there is also no reason to require an admin, as unlike deletion, no admin permissions are required to make changes. I'll leave the discussion a few more days to see if anyone else comments (not stagnation for three more weeks), but there is a clear consensus that the topics are related and should be merged, and moreover this article has zero unique information that warrants a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the hell your whales. It's best to wait until a discussion goes stale for at least a few days and then allow an admin or experienced (uninvolved) editor to assess consensus and close the discussion. Here is the applicable guide: WP:MERGE#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. By my count three editors have simply WP:VAGUEWAVED to WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay that simply reinforces WP:GNG. Three arguments state that the petition is not as popular as other petitions and that there's "nothing to suggest there will be any independent long-term significance to the petition" which is a fallacious argument (see WP:NOTTEMP). One argument is from an SPA, and probably a meatpuppet or a logged out user (sock). Like AfD discussions, merge discussions are WP:NOTVOTE. At this point, there is no consensus for a merge, so it makes sense to wait for others to comment to see if a consensus emerges. By the way, this does not seem to be a flash in the pan. Here is a source published yesterday: Christian Post.- Mr X 21:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woxsen School of Business

Sorry about that, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. We were trying to follow on the lines of the Indian School of Business page. You mentioned verifiable sources other than the school's website, however, on Indian School of Business's page, the reference for the Student Clubs is their own website. I was wondering if we could do the same for our Academic Courses. Sorry again about the errors made.Abhijit3288 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhijit3288. You can use the school's website as a reference, but you need other reference for verification. Notice that Indian School of Business has a number of newspaper, magazine and book references (see WP:V and WP:RS). Most importantly, the article should be written in concise, factual manner without marketing language. For example, statements like "The Woxsen Trade Tower is essentially an incubator where students’ business ideas are primed to create long-term impact" is not encyclopedic. Nor is "Classroom interactions with world-renowned academics and seasoned practitioners will help students acquire the perspective that is needed to appreciate the intricacies of business." Anything that you might find in a mission or vision statement doesn't belong. A long list of faculty members is not needed either. Phrases like " state of the art", "path defining experience", "insightful new ideas", "action-based experiential learning", and "High-end content" are PEACOCK phrases and are not informative for our purposes. Here are some examples of good university articles: Category:GA-Class Universities articles. I hope this helps.- Mr X 14:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Thank you...it sure does help.Abhijit3288 (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note

I was not the one who accused you of pediophagia. Really! <g> Collect (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just stick with the Vicia faba and a juice box.

- Mr X 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing Daniel O'Keeffe (commissioner)

Thanks for helping with Daniel O'Keeffe (commissioner). However I have a couple of questions: 1. Is it possible to change the title Daniel O'Keeffe (jurist)? Commissioner is not the best way to identify him imho. He is a former High Court judge, eminent lawyer etc. 2. I am puzzled why someone removed the external links and categories. I am not going to do re-do them as it took me hours to put them together. Cheers Ballyeagh (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sure, you can move the article, which is how articles are renamed. All you have to do is go to the article, hover over the "More" drop down menu near the top right of the page and select "move". You then just replace the word commissioner with the word jusrist, add a brief note in the reason field and click the move "page button".- Mr X 17:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Hubert: translation of an FR page

Thanks for your review of the translation I made of the Alain Hubert FR page in English. I am trying to improve it as per your remarks. I assumed that, since pages exist in FR and NL, it would be worthy of an EN translation. What could would be your suggestions to improve the sources I have referenced along with the page? I have tried to reference neutral and verifiable sources but maybe I am misunderstanding something. Any pointers would be much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intpolarfoundation (talk • contribs)

Hi Intpolarfoundation. Thank you for making the translation. If you click on the links in the "This article has multiple issues" box near the top of the article, you will be able to find out about what is considered reliable sources and how notability is determined. WP:CITE will tell you how to include footnote citations so that readers know which references support specific content. this, for example not a source, but merely a link to buy the subjects books. It's considered spam. This source doesn't discuss the subject, so it shouldn't be included. I hope that helps.- Mr X 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Removed non relevant links and added references in context as requested. Feel free to suggest other improvements and thanks for helping out a newbie. Do you go back and check the article yourself and remove warnings accordingly, do I remove some of them myself? How does this work?user: Intpolarfoundation user talk:Intpolarfoundation 11:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add or remove cleanup templates, as long as it's done in good faith. Currently, the vast majority of the references in the article are closely connected sources. Other than watching for vandalism and WP:BLP violations, I will probably not edit the article any further.- Mr X 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFAA speedy deletion

Sir,

Thank you for the comments, and my apologies if I violated any terms. It should be noted however that this seems like a notable association given that it is the premier association dedicated to the corporate finance profession. After much research it is apparent that no other affiliations, organization or group is solely dedicated to this industry - a notable accomplishment in my mind.

With kind regards JCPerty (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JCPerty. Notability (for Wikipedia's purposes) is determined by independent, reliable source. If you can find some books, magazines, journals or even newspapers that discuss the organization in detail, you can cite them in the article. That said, it seems implausible that an organization founded mere weeks ago would be notable at all. - Mr X 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I kindly disagree - I have literally no vested interest in this association whatsoever but on principal, there are other associatons with less notability on wikipedia - why were they approved? for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Finance_Association Such a site seems to self-promote, listing its meetings, services etc. My article merely highlights it's notable quality, the fact that it is the premier association dedicated solely to corporate finance? A second example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Finance_Association where their source is a press release written likely by someone with ties to the association. For the sake of providing accurate, relevant and novel information to the wikipedia community, would you kindly remove your speedy deletion tag?

With kind regards JCPerty (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you disagree with? That the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? You claim that the organization is the "premier association dedicated solely to corporate finance?" According to who? Please follow some of the links in the welcome message on your user talk page to get a better idea of what Wikipedia's purpose is, and to learn about our content policies and guidelines. I am not inclined to remove the speedy deletion because there is no evidence that the subject is notable.- Mr X 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Association's website and LinkedIn company page, two sources that seems to be relevant on other wikipedia articles. I disagree with your tag specifically in that the source, the nonprofit's webpage other pages (no writeups from what I can see thus far), provide membership solely to those working in corporate finance. Have you seen another association offering the same? I have not which is why I wrote the article and considered it to be notable. I realize such an organization may not be relevant or particularly notable to all, especially those without a particular interest in this field, but its a major deal to those who have followed the profession closely (corporate finance departments are in every company in every city around the world). Would you kindly reconsider your tag? Kind regards JCPerty (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Would you please read some of the policies and guidelines that I suggested, then come back with any questions about how they apply to this article? Thanks.- Mr X 01:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I need help after messing up some Wikimedia uploads

Hi MrX – Apologies for needing you to help me out of a mess again. This time I uploaded some images for the article Mary Catherine Lamb using Upload Wizard, and since the Wizard process doesn't come with a warning about lack of proper license, I didn't realize I'd done something wrong until I heard from a Wikimedia user that he'd tagged the images for deletion. Now I understand that I need to get permission from the photographer using the Declaration of Consent template, including the appropriate license, and then have him forward that permission to OTRS. This will fortunately be easy to do, as I am acquainted with the photographer, but there will be a delay since he's currently abroad. I would like to ensure that the images won't be deleted at the end of this week, but the procedure as described on the Commons:Email templates page doesn't seem to allow me to do what Jarekt suggested, per this Q&A:

Just one more question: will the images automatically be deleted on January 30th, one week after they were tagged with the warning? Or do I have time to wait for the photographer to return to the U.S. so I can get his permission per the OTRS requirements? Thanks again! --Ailemadrah (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The will be deleter if they do not have license template, but they can stay much longer with a license and the OTRS pending template if you know the license. --Jarekt (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I accomplish this, given that the images are already uploaded and already tagged for deletion? I don't know where/how to insert the license and OTRS pending notice. Thanks in advance for your wise counsel! --Ailemadrah (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are here: Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. You will have to put {{OTRS pending}} after |Permission= in the Information section for the file. The copyright owner will need to send an email to the OTRS email address, listing each uploaded file and explicitly agree to offer each photo freely under a compatible license (Usually Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0). The copyright owner will still own the copyright, but anyone will be able to use the photo for almost any purpose, including commercial use. If OTRS doesn't receive an email from the copyright owner in a reasonable amount of time, the file will be deleted.

Let me know if you have any other questions, although I am not an expert on Commons processes.- Mr X 23:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, as always!! I'll get to this later today. --Ailemadrah (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little correction: Images will be deleted unless they have a license, so adding it should be a first order of businesses. --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (Lebanese season 3)

You were, of course, quite right. It was careless of me, and thank you for correcting my mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't sure if I should re-open the AfD or start a new one. - Mr X 13:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it might have been better to start a new one, but I don't see it as making a lot of difference either way, and certainly just closing the case without opening a new one was not a good thing to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry bout that, didn't notice that it was a bundled deletion discussion. Again sorry. ///EuroCarGT 05:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I'm adding a conspicuous note.- Mr X 05:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spoonville site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottawa County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comment

Hey, thanks for participating the discussion on deletion of Ahmad Keshvari. I think your forgot to sign your post. Mhhossein (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks.- Mr X 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism and Undue Weight

Why? Wikipedia is not a newspaper and there is no evidence of long term notability or even that it is controversial just because a couple of people start crying about it. Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals. Arzel (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor does it apply. It's notable now. Don't you think it is extraordinary that Fox News would do something as taboo as publishing a video and stills of a man being burned to death? Don't you think that it's notable that they would do so while transparently politicizing the incident? - Mr X 23:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel, this is exactly the kind of behavior that you were warned about in a recent ArbCom case. Please tone it down a few notches. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Arzel: I really resent your comment. Unlike you, I actually create content, help new editors, remove vandalism and spam, improve new articles, participate in policy discussions, assist on noticeboards, ferret out sockpuppets, and contribute my intellectual property to these projects. You have a lot of nerve questioning my "purpose". Now kindly stay off my talk page.- Mr X 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete an article due to unreliable sources?

May you please give an explanation for your edit on Culture of Volume? I have five very reliable sources. And it's acceptable article as well as Kintsugi (album). So give me an explanation please. // User:Psemmler

I didn't propose it for deletion. I merely tagged it as possibly having notability issues per WP:NALBUM. Not all of your sources are reliable. In fact, it looks like this is the only potentially independent reliable source. To meet notability guidelines, the album should have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." Alternatively, it may be notable if it meets one or more of the other six criteria.- Mr X 18:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help at Environment_and_sexual_orientation

Hello MrX, I am sorry to bother you, but there is a disagreement over which wording to use in

Environment_and_sexual_orientation article. Could you come and give us your opinion please?

Basically, I am proposing to update a sentence in the lead section as follows:

from: "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists acknowledge scientists' beliefs that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but ..."
to: "The American Psychological Association and Royal College of Psychiatrists consider that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors, but ..."

The proposed change is based on the [latest statement] from Royal College of Psychiatrists which states: "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."

An editor, Flyer22, objects to this update, and suggested me to wait for your comment.

Thank you in advance. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a topic area where I have any expertise, but I will stop by the article when I'm a little more lucid and see if I can offer any insight.- Mr X 18:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My review

Did I review Treasure Chest Marketplace? —George8211 / T 10:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your Twinkle settings are probably configured to automatically mark new pages as reviewed when you add tags to an unreviewed page.- Mr X 13:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that makes sense now. —George8211 / T 19:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Case

Everybody who reviewed and commented on your evidence rejected it. If you're really surprised that the case was rejected, I suggest you seek the advice of someone you trust and respect to review the case and your conduct. I've seen you make some good contributions in various areas, but your conduct in this matter suggests you do not understand the issues or the norms of behavior applicable to the situation. Best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I'm sure you mean well, but between your rather insistent pleas for me to present probabilistic evidence, your rabid defense of Steeletrap in all situations, and your accusations of bad faith, I'm sure you will understand why your advice here is neither sought, nor welcomed. Cheers.- Mr X 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV/N

You changed from citing BLP issues to NPOV issues so that board is where those get discussed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Would you please elaborate?- Mr X 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asserted the CSM made a POV claim - BLP/N is the wrong place for that new complaint, so I had to ask at that board. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Did you not read my suggestion about keeping the discussion on the article talk page? I don't see how three separate discussions about one minor content dispute is helpful at all.- Mr X 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I also note that once you do the POV tagging maneuver, that NPOV/N is a proper venue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the correct venue: "Before you post to this [NPOV/N] page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page." I just don't think you liked what three other editors were telling you.- Mr X 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Edward Alahverdian

It's been deleted on those grounds once today, and then was restored as being significantly expanded from the previous version. I've never heard of the person and never saw the old version...but just thought I'd point that out if you hadn't noticed. --Onorem (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I guess an admin will see that it's a different version and decline the CSD.- Mr X 23:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari. AliAkar (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AliAkar. I appreciate your kind recognition.- Mr X 23:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics amended by motion

You may be interested that the Arbitration Committee has amended American politics by motion as follows:

Arzel (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the standard provisions. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lixxx235. - Mr X 00:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral

Hello, you recently reviewed the article I created The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral. I've responded to the issues you raised and explained my feelings on notability on the talk page, but because I'm new to Wikipedia I wanted to follow up and make sure that I addressed fully the issues you raised. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWWight (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KWWight. I recommend improving sources on the articles already created, rather than creating a lot of unsourced stubs. The book itself, and closely connected sources, do not make for good references. Please also see Golden rule.- Mr X 13:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed Shinsei_(cigarette)

Hi there, you left me a message on my talk page letting me know you unreviewed a page I marked as reviewed. That's no problem but I would like to know what your reason was for unreviewing it. Maybe I did something wrong. Cheers. FelisLeo^Talk! 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I unreviewed the article so that it would remain in the queue so that other editors could help determine if it is a notable topic or should be deleted. The article is extremely short and has no references. At a minimum, cleanup tags should be placed on an article such as this before marking it as reviewed. Here are a couple of resources that may be helpful: WP:NPP#Patroller checklists and WP:NPRSCHOOL.- Mr X 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

این نشان برای شما!

	نشان پشتکار
	thank you sir! I like you mrx arta 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BITE

hey hello,

Could you read the description of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard again. Then establish that there is no serious attempt towards constructive dialog[7] And lastly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (aka WP:BITE) if you are not already familiar with that guideline. These are the standards, I suggest you live up to them.

If you have any questions I'm all ears.

Thanks,

84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot going on in your comment. First, I don't understand your claim about "no serious attempt towards constructive dialog" followed by a link to the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Second, you're not a newcomer. Third, I didn't bite you—I warned you. Fourth, when someone objects to your moderation of a talk page post, it's usually not a good idea to persist.- Mr X 02:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a response, first you say there is a lot going on in my posting, then you claim you don't understand what I wrote, then you tell me that there is a link in my posting, after this you conclude I'm not the newbie I'm talking about and finally you mention to have objection to my objection. It is usually not a good idea to have objection to something without explaining what it is you are objecting to.

Are you objecting to wp:bite? To the notice board description? wp:civil perhaps? Or is it that you are just objecting for the sake of objecting?

Do explain why it is desirable to have topics for the purpose of attacking new users on a notice board about articles.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard : This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.

Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.

This doesn't fit the bill in my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=648556116

If you don't agree please explain how WP:BITE doesn't apply to you. Until you satisfy my curiosity I will continue to refactor.

Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages : "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material"

btw, you don't have to tell me what I wrote.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Paudwal

I am almost positive that this guy is also a sockpuppet, his way he types and his articles as well have been identical to this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sadman_Sakibzz wanted to point this out to you! Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will keep an eye out for future socks.- Mr X 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: 4PM (software)

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 4PM (software), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Maybe try PROD. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kelapstick, I know it doesn't apply to software, but the application is web-based, which would seem to make it web content. Is web-based software excluded as a type of web content?- Mr X 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Eich Source

Hello MrX. I love the diversity and NPOV nature of wikipedia. That is why I frequent and use wikipedia so often, and try my best to make contributions to further this goal. Your recent revert of my edit referenced the title of the source article. I have no problems with said title, but the phrase "enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies" within the article is a personal attack on the opposition's reputation. Such attacks, sources or not, have no place on wikipedia. Smk65536 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this edit (the only one where I used the word "title" in the edit summary)? If so, I reverted you because you removed "OKCupid" which is important context, and mentioned in numerous other sources. I don't see the phrase ""enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies" in the Brendan Eich article. Would you please point it out? You also said in your edit summary "WP:NPOV, reference is filled with gay rights propaganda" which suggest you may not entirely understand WP:NPOV. Here you added a very selective quote from the political group NOM which is known for "demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals" which is also not neutral.- Mr X 12:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my edit summary is not NPOV, then I'm not sure what to make of your edit summary "Unwarraranted opinion from an organization known for demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals", which I am shocked to see you repeat here. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. The quote comes from reference 13. Which reference are you talking about? Smk65536 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary included the description of NOM from the leading civil rights organization in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center. In other words, it's not commentary from me. You still haven't explained where in our article the phrase "enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies" appears. I also see that you have restored your bold edit: "gay activists who have forced him out of the company he has helped lead for years", which is the wrong thing to do for WP:NPOV reasons that I already mentioned and WP:BRD.- Mr X 13:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not selective quoting then? You appear to be a long time editor. So I'm sure that you know that this "commentary" is certainly not NPOV, quote or not. The quote from OKCupid is mentioned in reference 13. The quote I removed was for reasons mentioned in my edit summary, in that the original quote does not appear from the two sources. Following our discussion, I have even resorted to use a new quote, which apparently you do not agree with either. If you find a better quote from a reliable source, I'll be happy to know. Smk65536 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting something in an edit summary bears no comparison to quoting something in a Wikipedia article. Edit summaries exist to justify and explain edits. Why raise the issue of content (""enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies") in a source if that content is not actually being used in the article? What matters is what's in our article, and that it be neutrally presented and verifiable in reliable sources.- Mr X 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family Research Council

1. Is it considered OR to check whether what sources say is consistent with what articles say or imply? Or is this just OR because the copy of his speech in the newspaper is considered a primary source?

2. For Christians, the scope of "Sexual Immorality" is bigger than homosexuality. Is there reliable third-party analysis that claims Museveni was specifically referring to homosexuality? Given that he's apparently not shy about the subject, I'd say that such analysis should be cited, and be from particularly reliable sources. Dingsuntil (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is conclusions or analysis by editors not explicitly stated in a source. The original sentence said nothing about homosexuality, so adding the parenthetical "which did not mention homosexuality" was in fact original research. We rely on third-party sources such as reputable news organizations and scholarly texts arrive at such conclusion. We're not allowed to do it ourselves.

I'm aware that sexual immorality is a broad concept, but Uganda has record of human rights abuses toward LGBT people. The FRC has a record of opposing LGBT rights and they used Museveni's prayer to further their cause.- Mr X 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

AnuzSubedi2000 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

following?

If you are indeed, following me, kindly cease. If not, I wonder how you accidentally found the "citation overkill" essay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: please don't make pointy edits as you did here and here; don't browbeat as you did here, here and here; don't forum shop as you did here; and stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground as you're doing right here. By the way, when some asks "...this whole list is so marvelously stupid that it can fall on on its own merits. Whose idea was it, anyway?" and you answer "Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly." you have made an unfounded personal attack on me. You again did it in a very public venue even though I recently warned you about such. As you well know, I never edited the list article or the PNAC article at all, so your aspersion posted on the co-founder's talk page is truly deplorable. The next time I see such conduct from you, I plan to raise it at ANI, leading to the likelihood that it will go to Arbcom.- Mr X 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FC Steaua București league record by opponent

On this page Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent do not apply WP:NOTSTATS? I don't understand you. I take the informations from the official book of Steaua and from this site http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.218.252 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we should not have pages consisting of only stats. I'm not sure if Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent meets our general nobility gudelines, but the article does have context and sources, which the FC Steaua București article did not. Also, Arsenal F.C. league has a much longer history. I recommend that you inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. They should be able to provide guidance on whether FC Steaua București league record by opponent meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. You should also carefully read WP:COI if you are editing on behalf of an organization. Best wishes.- Mr X 12:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this page AFC Wimbledon league record by opponent????? I put link for each season and pages from official book of Steaua where i take the informations. All informations are from next...

Steaua - Legenda unei echipe. Bucharest: Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti. December 2008. ISBN 1-899468-10-2.
Constantin, Brancu (1994). Din culisele Supercampioanei. Bucharest: Editura Tempus. ISBN 973-95993-1-1.
Authors, More (1968). Anuarul fotbalului romanesc. Bucharest: Editura Consiliului Naţional pentru educaţie fizică şi sport.

And this web site ^[1]

References

^ "Liga I 1947-2014". statisticsfootball.com. 1947–2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

Can you help me to change my username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.218.252 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on Wikipedia that need improvement or that should be deleted outright. The existence of another similar article is not a good argument for keeping an article (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). I really think you should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for the best advice. You can request a username change here: WP:CHUS, but you should log in to your account first.- Mr X 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pattern

Don't try to revise history in this classic non-apology. You implied that it was (partly) my idea to create the article, not that I supported it. You did this in the same context in which you compared the creation of the article to McCarthyism. That was shamefully dishonest. You have no idea whether I support the article or not.

He does it everywhere, on a daily basis. And when there's disagreement, he runs to make an appeal to Jimbo, which makes no sense at all, considering his attack on Jimbo in the header on his talk page. I think it's time for more arbcom restrictions, which I believe he may still be under. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I've observed this pattern of behavior for a few years now, and up until recently, I viewed it as annoying but relatively harmless. Lately though, partly fueled by conflict with Ubikwit, his conduct has become increasingly irrational, mendacious, and disruptive. Everything I mentioned two sections up has played out repeatedly in multiple fora, wasting vast amounts of volunteers' time. I consider Wikipedia to be among the most significant cultural expressions of our time, so I can no longer ignore this toxic, unyielding, pedantic, always right attitude as it continues to demoralize other editors and damage the project. The last straw for me was when he lied about me on Jimbo's talk page, without even notifying me. I don't normally watch Jimbo's talk page. I only found out about it when I perused Collect's recent contributions right before he accused me of following him. Judging from the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, a few other editors were similarly maligned.

I don't know if an ARCA or AE is the best course of action or not. I will have to review the relevant case (TPM, I think?). At the moment, I'm considering all options to bring the matter to a forum where it can be resolved. Whether that's Collect's talk page, AN, or Arbcom, I don't yet know.

Pinging Collect because I think it would be hypocritical and unfair not to notify him of this discussion.- Mr X 01:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most happy with a simple ban on him editing all topics related to American politics, per the arbcom restrictions in that area. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may end up happening. Meanwhile, Fyddlestix has raised these recent incidents at ANI.- Mr X 02:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hi Mr. X, I see the arbcom notice, thanks. Two questions, if you wouldn't mind giving me some advice:

First, since I am wholly new to this and clearly bungled my ANI posting, and since you seem to have some experience in these matters, is there anything to keep in mind while drafting my statement or anything a neophyte should know here? Is more detail/depth better here or is like ANI where I now know to keep things short and sweet?
Second: what kind of a window do I have to enter the statement? I am swamped with some work today but if it's urgent I can throw something up in a hurry.

Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fyddlestix. There was nothing wrong with your ANI post. Unfortunately, people sometimes use bureaucratic rules as a weapon. In this case, the insistence that you have to ask for a specific sanction was utterly false.

I recommend that you keep your statement brief and on point, with a few key diffs to support any claims. Usually, arbs will not vote to decline until they have heard from all involved parties (within a reasonable few days). I recommend that you post a brief statement saying that you will post a full statement shortly (best to give an actual time frame).- Mr X 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not do this on my talk page? Thanks.- Mr X 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think you should add Viriditas to the case. He's been an antagonist against Collect for some time. Just think that would be classy to make sure all the partiers are all together on the Titanic.--MONGO 21:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion.- Mr X 21:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've never been an "antagaonist" against Collect or anyone else here, so I would prefer to not be "added" to any case. MONGO is fond of creating fantasy worlds and inhabiting them with people who disagree with his bankrupt, 19th century paleoconservative ideas that have been demonstrably proven false time and again. It's like arguing with a flat earther or creationist. It's not my fault that I live in the 21st century, but if MONGO expects others to join him in his 19th century fantasy world, where climate deniers and perpetual warmongers rally around jingoism and discrimination, he can expect to find himself in continuing disputes. Telegram for MONGO: you're a century behind, try to catch up. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your harassment and personal attacks of both me and Collect I will add your name myself and present evidence of same in 48 hours.--MONGO 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ygm

Hello, MrX/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will not bother with ANI

I learned my lesson last time. If he wants to be petty fine, it reflects badly on him.Jbh (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not worth sweating small stuff. I will say that that style of user page use is typical of editors who eventually end up indeffed.- Mr X 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Life USA

If you think that that source can not be used then... 1)Where is there proof that Bonadea has that it is rewritten PR? 2)Then why does this article, Christian Service Brigade, that has a single sourced article failed to get turned into a redirect at AfD to Scout-like organizations in the United States#Christian Service Brigade. 3) How does that contradicts WP:SELFSOURCE that does allow it? 4) How come then did I managed to get blocked for putting a Template:Notability on article that is total generated from fan "news" sites that are probably total generated from rewritten PR or straight up republished PR. And they were arguing for its use as "notable" sources not include able sources. --Spshu (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spshu. I will try to answer your questions the best I can. 1. The source mentions a press release and a press conference, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a rewritten press release. However, it is trivial. An announcement about a future, fairly ordinary event is not really worthy of including in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. 2. I can't answer that. Perhaps it's a poorly written article. See OTHERSTUFF. 3. It's not that the source, or the content you added, is not allowed. It's that it has been objected to by two editors (myself and Bonadea). (See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS). You should make your case on the talk page. 4. I can't answer that. You may want to ask the admin who blocked you.- Mr X 00:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MrX!

I saw your evidence about "false claims" by Collect. You gave this diff where Collect mentioned an RfC. Could you please clarify what RfC he is talking about and give a link to this RfC? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the talk page archives you should be able to find the RfC, or you can ask Collect. The false claim was that a short passage of sourced content posted to a talk page constitutes a BLP violation.- Mr X 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your diff Collect tells that an offensive BLP material can be removed from a talk page, because it has been officially identified as inappropriate on an RfC per WP:Consensus. If that was indeed decided on the RfC, then this is not a "false claim" by Collect. So, what exactly has been decided on the RfC? You suppose to check this yourself prior to making such serious accusations on arbitration pages. This is difficult for me to find because I never edited in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the article and was never aware of an RfC that to the effect that sourced biographic content can not be discussed on a talk page. On reflection, that would be rather ludicrous, wouldn't it. Since Collect made the claim "(WP:BLP violation per RfC removed)", it's up to him to back that claim up with evidence. If you disagree with the evidence that I posted, you are welcome to present evidence to the contrary on the evidence page or comment on my evidence on the workshop page. My talk page is not the place for cross examination.- Mr X 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About reverting

Rather than defending someone else's reverts, please continue to engage in discussion. Thank you. Samsara 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been engaged. In fact, I started the discussion. My warning about edit warring stands. Also see WP:BRD.- Mr X 13:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time to post threats, you should have time to respond to ongoing discussion. Samsara 13:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did respond, here.- Mr X 13:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after I reminded you. Samsara 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

MrX, there is currently a discussion going on about the 2015–16 season articles, incase you wanted to add your two cents about it. Corky | Chat? 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I agree that as long as the articles are unsourced and filled with 'TBA', they should simply be redirected to the main articles or moved to draft space. I'm concerned that the new editor is not heeding any warnings and not responding on their talk page. It reminds me of this sockpuppet, although I don't believe that they are the same person.- Mr X 22:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and they won't respond on any other page, either. It will be frustrating to deal with this person. Corky | Chat? 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr X I Will leave on Sunday Night — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big plate (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Will quit creating Articles On Sunday Night Big plate (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best for you to stop creating new articles now, and use the time to bring other other articles you already created up to our minimal publishing standards. Please take some time to read the links that I left on your talk page about the proper way to create new articles, and how to add references. Also, are you using more than one user account?- Mr X 01:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning MrX How You Doin I'm Well I Will create one final category this week and then I plan to Log out tomorrow night. Big plate (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're telling me this.- Mr X 18:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon Mrx I Will create one final Category Today And Then I Will Log out Tomorrow Night As long as I am not Disruptive or putting TBA Or TBD God Bless You And Thank you. Big plate (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MrX, looks like he's back as User:Barenight. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I know, and also Barechest. I just don't have the energy to plow a sock farm today.- Mr X 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pietrantonio Pace

Dear MrX, I think that an article about Pietrantonio Pace should be included in an encyclopedia because he is in this wikipedia pages: [[8]] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6mische_Bleirohrinschrift His book is quoted in: Frontinus De Aquaeductus Urbis Romae edited with introduction and commentary by R.H.Rodgers Professor of Classics, The University of Vermont His book is also in Columbia university libraries Ghent University library University of Toronto Libraries Heidelberg University library Le catalogue du Système Universitaire de Documentation de France: OUVRAGES DE LE BIBLIOTHEQUE DE MONSIEUR CLAUDE NICOLET INTEGRES A LA BIBLIOTHEQUE GERNET/GLOTZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setlero (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you try using the Article wizard to create your article, making sure that it includes proper references. An article's existence on another Wikipedia project is not enough to ensure that it will be kept on English language Wikipedia. You may want to spend some time learning about editing and citing references before trying to create an article from scratch. The welcome message on your user talk page has some helpful links to get you started.- Mr X 22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out Tonight

I'm leaving You Tonight Well after tonight I'm gonna log out well thank You Mr.x. Even Though We had bad and good times thank you for letting me part of your company. Thank You very much and god bless you and thank you very much. Big plate (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's Time for me to go and guess what I'm sad that college basketball is almost over. And I miss the NFL and College Football. Because the NBA Regular season is soon to be over and that makes me sad as well. But Who Knows when and where it will start up again. And in closing it's time for me to say goodbye MrX thank you for a great week. and until then god bless you take care and thank you. until then Goodbye. Big plate (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Ted Cruz changes

I just wanted to explain that I didn't do any alterations, I reverted to an earlier version, because the current one was, for some reason I don't know, available, and it was preventing people to access the article. I've read the changelog and noticed that it wasn't anything about deletion or something like this, so I assumed that the new version had some bug and reverted to gain access again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernandohsc (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That's weird, but not unheard of. Thanks for the explanation.- Mr X 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Liga I 1947-2014". statisticsfootball.com. 1947–2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

[1]