User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2012

Travis Blackley MLB Pitcher

I was trying to edit which arm he throws with and was told I needed to include a source. My source is the pictures that are posted on the Wikipedia page. You can clearly see that he doesn't throw with his right arm. 67.170.143.35 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)A67.170.143.35 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My fault. I Googled it after you changed it back and saw that he does in fact throw left. – MrX 03:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OR. Try this. [1]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a little more reliable. – MrX 03:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

erm??

got a message from you?? I didnt do anything. I think you might be mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.1.236 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonprofits

I see there was a little confusion about the exempt organization status of SaveCalifornia.com, which you ultimately correctly left as a public charity. Section 509 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code defines "public charity" and "private foundation". 501(c)(3) organizations are one or the other. In the case of this article, the organization met the requirements of a public charity under 509(a)(1). You can see which type of organization it is from the Form 990. A private foundation files a 990-PF, SaveCalifornia.com filed a regular 990. In the case of exempt organizations, a public charity is very different than a publicly-held corporation that you would find on a stock exchange. The public donates to the charity instead of the public owning part of the company. Anyway, I thought I'd fill you in on why I used that description in the infobox (Sorry for the geekfest . . . it probably comes from being an accountant and serving a stint as the CFO of a 501(c)(3).) Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! – MrX 15:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

SPLC hate group new articles

Hey MrX -

Slow as it is, I'm still theoretically working on my overhaul of the list of hate groups, and I see that you're working on creating articles - would you do me a favor and link them on User talk:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups so I can keep track of the new ones being created? Thanks much. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to edit that page or talkpage whenever. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality and romance

I won't be reverting further today. I do dispute the use of the term in the lede and question the reference being used for this as undue weight to both the publication (used far more than I feel it should) and its use in the article to reference the romance portion. Romance is not a sexual desire or attraction. It may well have encyclopedic value in the article but would need more sourcing. There are a number of publication that seperate romantic feelings from erotic sexual desire and i don't think it will be that difficult to locate these sources. At any rate I don't intend to edit war over it, but may make further changes in the near futre and feel we may need a third opinion on this. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Discussion is good, I value your viewpoint and I agree that additional opinions are beneficial to improving content. I have no intention to revert this again either, as I try to limit myself to a single revert, in most cases. Cheers – MrX 23:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

MassResistance

I think it may make sense to combine all the Romney items into one section. Just a thought though. Insomesia (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I will adjust accordingly. – MrX 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Little Green Rosetta

If you look further into lgr's history, you'll find he is often a tag-team reversion partner of Belchfire. It explains a lot about his defenses thereof, and his deliberate misrepresentations about the edits and edit summaries discussed. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link from the discussion you were referring to, note LGR's tag-teaming with Belchfire to remove that sourced info. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that kind of behavior is a natural tendency of people with similar biases to work somewhat in concert, in spite of their intentions to remain neutral. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too, although it's certainly not intentional. Overall, I've found LGR to be very level-headed and reasonable, and I believe that they are truly interested in improving the encyclopedia. Belchfire, not so much. – MrX 02:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SkepticAnonymous -- Wow, they really double down on the false accusations. It's like they're afraid of anyone able to look up diffs of their misbehavior! 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say about that but, if you're not a sock, you can (and should) ignore it. – MrX 02:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty more to look at. It was catalogued at an RFC/U draft at one point which I believe was moved to Viriditas's user space. The two of them tag-team quite often. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the advice about ignoring it, I'll follow that from this point on. I just didn't like the false accusation, all it takes is one of their allied admins to block claiming the accusation is true and then it's a world of stupid afterward. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

For this edit. It was... heartwarming. And of course I unreservedly accept your apology. StAnselm (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits

I removed it, because people like the Phelpses do that sort of thing to get attention, they like the fact that it gets a mention on the Wikipedia page, it's best to ignore people like that, and yes I see the irony in this. Theofficeprankster (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand viscerally why you would want to remove that content, but it is an important (albeit ugly) part of this story. I would recommend that, if you still think it should be removed, you start a discussion on the article's talk page so other editors can weight in as well. 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

LGR

MrX, as a respected editor, and someone whom, I believe, has the respect of LGR, could you please take a look at this and comment? It seems as if LGR is hounding and stalking me Wikipedia, and this making me feel very uncomfortable editing on Wikipedia. If you could please ask them to stop doing so? Thank you. --Scientiom (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure Scientiom, I will have a look at it an see if I can help the situation in any way. – MrX 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

why did you revise my change?

mr x, just saw your message regarding my edit to the lgbt symbol wiki page....as you will notice i am a new user to wiki....on that note, can you please advise me as to why you deleted my edit....is it because i didnt site the writing? if that is why, please let me know and i can make the entries correctly so you can be completely helpful....let me share thismwith you....the parts regarding aids and mental instability associated with the gay flag are both traceable to the united states board of health website....so do i provide a link? is it a footnote....please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardbob600 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. – MrX 03:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my.... Looks like another editor that needs to be monitored :(   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your page

Hi MrX, just coming by to say that I like your page design! That is all lol. Have a good day! ★ Teammm ^Talk
_Message 15:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Teammm - I'm glad you like it! I actually copied shamelessly received some inspiration from your own very fine user page.

P.S. You should consider re-italicizing your signature. It had a certain dynamismmm before. Just my 2¢. Have a great day! – MrX 15:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. I actually got mine from someone else too lol. My signature's gone through so many changes.. it's a chameleon. ★Teammm ^Talk
_Message 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing talk page discussions

Wikipedia does not have rules that require the closing of talk page discussion started or taken part in by blocked users or sock puppets. Although not forbidden, there is no benefit to the project. 201.34.218.243 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, another Acoma Magic sock. Insomesia (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I know - I reported it to SPI a little while ago. – MrX 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WebPlatform

Hi, I just read your message about my Webplatform edit on the HTML5 page. Webplatform is probably the most interesting HTML5 documentation on the net and it's a non-profit, so: what's the problem ? Nyssen (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several problems with the link you added.

1.Your link was described as "an open community of developers building resources for a better web, regardless of brand, browser or platform."

yes and ??

It seems promotional and makes no mention of HTML5

2.The content is not HTML5 specific

HTML5 has 2 definitions: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/HTML/HTML5

Let me put it this way. The website you linked does not (in my opinion) add to the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject

3.Web Platform Docs is currently in alpha

yep, but it's already the best on the web

That seems a bit hyperbolic

4.The site is not authoritative on the subject

these guys are THE HTML5 experts; The goal of the site is to provide a single location for the currently-dispersed documentation on web development. Plans include importing documentation from Mozilla's MDN, Opera's WSC, Microsoft's MSDN, Google's HTML5Rocks, and more.

Funny, I thought the W3C were the experts

5.Wikipedia is not a link repository

what about the other links like Mozilla ?

See WP:OTHERSTUFF

I hope that helps. – MrX 04:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nyssen, my thoughts on this represent my opinion based on my understanding of Wikipedia's purpose, policies and practices. Others may have different views. I recommend that any further discussions about this occur on the article talk page so that other involved editors can weight in. Please feel free to copy this discussion to that talk page. Best wishes – MrX 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Would you mind explaining why you removed my edit ? The anti -vadal bot edit was a false positive- see the Talk page of the page in question Hayes Dolce (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Because you did not justify reverting the bot reversion with an edit summary. It appeared to be removal of sourced content by a new editor. It seems that there is not a consensus on the talk page to remove the material, but I'm sure that further discussion will resolve that. If the material is to be removed again, I suggest asking another editor to do it and they should use an edit summary to provide a somewhat more detailed reason. – MrX 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I never knew ...

Thank you for helping me, I sincerely appreciate it. Also, thank you for showing me all the fun Wikipedia has to offer. Thank you for being so kind and understanding. I'm sure you can tell, I'm very green but willing to learn. Wish you could adopt me. I'm not even sure if I am leaving a message correctly. Thank you, again. You have made me very happy.. I have some reading to do on Wikipedia editing and a few tutorials to watch. Thank you for showing me the way. I doubt I will complain anymore about lack of stimulation on the Internet... Thank you, 'caint say it enough! Thanks!

F.S.FlowerTalk 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. There's a lot of good information in the tutorials and help articles. Feel free to drop be a message here if you need help with anything. I look forward to seeing more of your articles. Cheers – MrX 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bed bug control techniques

The Wikipedia subject was "Bed bug control techniques"; under the section "Organic materials". If your abrasive and indifferent attitude is indicative of Wikipedia editors in general it's a sad reflection on the ability of outsiders to add useful content.

Roywau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roywau (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Roywau - I think you edited the article before you had a user account under IP 76.30.253.233. I made a (perhaps erroneous judgement) about your edit. The edit "Ninety percent (90%) grain alcohol, which can be bought at your local drug or grocery store, also kills bed bugs instantly."

I wonder if you meant Isopropyl alcohol? I've never seen grain alcohol available at a drug store or a grocery store. More importantly, your personal experience, while valuable, is not sufficient for including content on Wikipedia. Material should be properly sourced so that readers trust the information they read in articles.

I apologize if my reversion seemed abrasive. I'm going to leave some helpful links on your talk page that I think will give you some useful information about the inner workings of Wikipedia. – MrX 12:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My mistake in using "grain" alcohol when I meant to use "Isopropyl" alcohol. "Personal experiene" doesn't qualify as a "source"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roywau (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, personal experience" doesn't qualify as a "source". Please have a look at WP:RELIABLESOURCES, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTESSAY for additional explanation. If you can find newspapers, magazines, journals or books that support the content that you want to add, then the content could be added, with source citations. See WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE for additional information on how to add citations. – MrX 14:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kindly help MrX, I bookmarked it for later - Visualpx (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Visualpx. - MrX 03:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

SIM2 Multimedia

You have deleted the article that I just created today. I understand that you that you feel that this article is not notable, but I beg to disagree. You will note that I added an entry in the talk page about notability of this company at the time I created it. I also note that you were kind enough to put a note on my talk page, but you did not leave me time to respond, because you (apparently) deleted the article the same day it was created. May I draw your attention to this from the subject section A7:

...The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

— section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion

I would appreciate if you could restore my previous entry. As is, I am reluctant to invest my time making contributions if they are to be summarily deleted at the outset. Enquire (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your article was deleted (suggested by me, but deleted by an admin). As DGG explained in detail on your talk page, the article did not meet the minimum inclusion requirements. I would suggest that you try to have 2-3 sources for any article, and 1-2 sources should be from a recognized third party newspaper, magazine, book or news website. If I recall, your article seemed promotional and consisted mainly of a short product listing with little other detail. I've been in your shoes before so now, when I create new articles, I first flesh them out in my sandbox (yours is here User:Enquire/sandbox) and then publish them once I know that they unquestionably meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. If you haven't already, you may want to read WP:FIRST. I hope this helps and wish you success with your continued editing. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: George Klein (radio)

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of George Klein (radio), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I ended up deleting the article per A10, as a duplicate of George Klein (disc jockey); the article, however, made a credible assertion of importance and should not have been tagged per A7. A BLPPROD would have been the way to go, here... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will try to apply better judgement in the future. - MrX ^(TALK) 12:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

True Capitalist Radio

Hey, MrX, later on, somebody else might put in reliable sources from other websites. - TheWikiMan95 22:01, 22 October 2012

Sure, I don't dispute that. In fact, that's why I added the tags at the top of the article. - MrX 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File Mover permission granted

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dianna (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Avionne mark

The article Avionne mark has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Theopolisme 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, all I did was move it so the title would conform to WP:TITLE. By all means, it should be deleted if no references are added. - MrX 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BLPPRODs

Please stop adding BLPPROD tags to articles that do have references. Examples are Yuri Kane, Mohammed Alqarni, and Mikhail Kravchuk (footballer) Bgwhite (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons require reliable sources (references). A list of external links are not the same as references, especially when they are merely sports stats. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. - MrX 04:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Try reading the first few sentences of WP:BLPPROD, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't realize that the referencing standard for BLPs was so loose. Apologies for the inconvenience. - MrX 04:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI... sport stat sites do show that an athlete did play in a notable league. This fulfills notability requirements for alot of sports. So, in these specific cases, the standard is not loose. If you feel there are no reliable references available for a person, a regular PROD or AfD are still options that are available. Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Abbassa Malik

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Abbassa Malik, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a blatant hoax - google translating the references suggests it is true. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Color me confused. The only reason I nominated it was because it was preciously deleted hours before for being a blatant hoax. - MrX 19:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reviewing Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (2012). Cheers!--В и к и T 18:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. - MrX 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, MrX! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great tool! - MrX 03:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, MrX. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UK channel line up Afd

Just to let you know, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You are now autopatrolled

Hi MrX, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, TheCatalyst31. Much appreciated. - MrX 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rohnert Park considered for deletion

Hey, MrX. Could you take another look at the article considered for deletion Rohnert Park (album)? I've filled out some more information in the article to justify its notability, and User:Frankie has also argued to keep it. Ozhu (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced better now, and probably meets notability guidelines (WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG). I was able to find print articles on HighBeam, so I will modify my !vote to a keep. - MrX 01:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical! Ozhu (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE notification

There is a thread at WP:AE which relates to matters you have been involved in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD

Hi, MrX. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel

Is there a reason you removed Arzel's comment from the WoW talk page? The comment was a bit pointy but nothing that over the line that warranted removal. Or maybe I'm missing something. Its been known to happen.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No reason, other than I'm apparently clumsy and inattentive. I was viewing the talk page history and must have accidentally clicked on the rollback link. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. - MrX 03:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew there was a simple explanation. Thanks!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your photos have been restored

I have restored File:Orlando City Hall.jpg and File:Dynetech Centre.jpg. In the future, sending permission to WP:OTRS won't be necessary; if anyone questions your authorship of any image, just tell them that OTRS Ticket #2012102110008198 contains verification of your identity. On an unrelated note, I've noticed that you upload your photos here, to the English Wikipedia. While that's fine, I would recommend that in the future you upload to Wikimedia Commons instead. Doing so allows other language Wikipedias and other sister projects to use the photos, not just English Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this King of Hearts, I really appreciate it. I am waiting for my account on Commons to be unified with my enwiki account before uploading there again. Hopefully the issue will be resolved soon. - MrX 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For finally (hopefully) ending the forum-shopping we have had to endure for so long. Have this and know that it is deserved and delicious! Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jenova20! As you know, the community has been exceedingly patient with the very few individuals who persistently disrupt the article's talk page. I suspect some will go away for a while until another troll shows up, and then the tired arguments will resurface. At that point, I am going directly to ANI and suggesting a topic ban or block.

Thanks again for the cupcake! - MrX 14:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's disgusting how many edits i've made saying the same thing on that forum/talk page to certain editors with WP:IDHT syndrome. Everyone loves cupcakes =P

Thanks again ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Christopherson

Hello, MrX. I have received a message about my recent addition to a biographical article about Peter Christopherson having been removed. Is there any particular reason to that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie gothard (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened since it occurred a month ago, but I can only assume that I pressed the wrong button while using Stiki. I have restored the content and redacted my message on your talk page, and I apologize for the error. - MrX 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! {{Frankie gothard (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)}}

ANI notifications

Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 has the complete, as far as I can tell, archiving. It may be prudent to ensure you notify all editors in these discussions, I don't know if you have already or not but they're easier to see in one place now. If you want me to look into it I can as well. Insomesia (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Insomesia. I will check it to see if I missed any. - MrX 13:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist proposals for alternative Jewish homelands

Hello, you sent me a message saying you undid some things I changed on this article. I do think there is an error, since I only deleted the most biased parts who are clearly counter-productive (most of it is biased BTW), and I even stated my motives on the talk section, so why label it vandalism? I won't undo your change until I understand what bothers you, but I personally think that is the best thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bablybabuska (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Your edit was flagged by a bot as possible vandalism, probably because you did not use an edit summary. I should have been more careful in reviewing it. I have self-reverted, with apologies. - MrX 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you using Stiki for that?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Great tool — not so great user. - MrX 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hello, I am sending this message to all the people I judge to be principal actors in the incident being discussed at this AN/I subpage. The discussion there has already become a bloated re-run of the dispute between you all at the original article talk page. You have made your points there and at AN/I and no further good can be gained by continuing to rehash old arguments. As an outsider, I have to say the only impression this continued argument gives is of all parties being unable to resist trying to get in the last word. Not every post by the "other side" needs your response. Your dignity and the cause you are arguing for, suffers with every further response. Please leave the AN/I field free now for other editors to respond. Please note I am leaving the exact same note on a number of people's talk page - not everybody has been equally active so please excuse me if you feel my tone here feels undeservedly critical. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks for reining the discussion in and helping to facilitate it's conclusion. - MrX 13:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for taking the note above in good heart! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Get stuffed

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A big thank you from me to you.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks LGR! The same to you to you as well. - MrX 13:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Polish victims

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Polish victims to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. I don't think this really comes within the scope of G10, though it ceratinly contravenes WP:SOAP. I will watch and AfD if the PROD is contested. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't certain that it met CSD criteria, but I was pretty sure the article was problematic. Thanks for your help. - MrX 19:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENS?

Why do you insist on deleting a simple profile page of Edwin Mike Kaprat III who was died in 1995 ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_%22Mike%22_Kaprat) You did not even read my protest. The is a thousand pages of Serial Killers profiles on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States. Be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonparaski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I did read your talk page post and was responding to it, but the page was deleted by an admin before I could save my response. Biographies of living people must be properly referenced from reliable sources. This is a strict policy on Wikipedia. Please see WP:BLP for more information. It appeared that your article referenced a living person, but I see that you mentioned that he died in 1995. Please keep in mind that all articles on Wikipedia should be properly sourced. I recommend that you review the help links that I left on your talk page, which will help you better understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as how to create your first article. Please let me know if you have any other questions. - MrX 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was the admin who deleted the article. I have responded on Vonparaski's talkpage. I endorse MrX's comments regarding sourcing an article, living or not, particularly when the disucssion is negative. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, The JPS. You explained it better than I did. - MrX 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just a infobox box with a picture to complete a Serial Killer existing list. No need to write a complete biography. Sorry, but your statements are contradictory, JPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonparaski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My pages

Hello MrX i just think they should be kept, maybe someone could add on? Thank you. --Yek2iop (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yek2iop. Unfortunately, not every topic can have an article at Wikipedia unless it is notable. If you have a look at the help topics linked in the welcome message that I left on your user talk page, I think you will get a better idea of what types of articles you can create and how best to create them. You are off to a good start, by including a reference and the stub templates, but you just need to make sure the topic is important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Best wishes. - MrX 23:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your constructive edits! Pass a Method talk 10:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pass a Method. It's much appreciated! - MrX 13:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot for dredging up all those other sources about the Koch sons and the Birchers. I've just about had it with the obstructionism on that, and especially with the refusal from the other side to do any research of their own. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. These are some of the same editors that try to keep verifiable knowledge out of other articles. I imagine that this dispute will not be resolved unless outside help is sought, perhaps from arbcom. I have little faith in DRN, RfC or AN X being of any real help. - MrX 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pushed a case like this through ARBCOM before, but that was years back and I don't know whether the current committee would take the case. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that ARBCOM would not take it unless all other dispute resolution avenues were exhausted first. I would assume that this would be the case even after the elections, based on what I've been able to glean. - MrX 18:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Rebowe

Hi Mr X,

I think you'll like my changes to the article on Tim Rebowe. I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to reference inside an article. Please help me improve it, not delete it. All the information in the article was gathered from the links in the reference section. This coach is an assistant coach and was a head coach at the highest level of college football, Division I. He was also head coach at the highest level of high school football in Louisiana. I did a quick 5 minute search on people who were already on wikipedia but just assistant coaches at lower levels of college football than Rebowe(non-Divison I) and found the following: Craig Stump–Texas State, Chad Glasgow–Texas State, Don Shows–Northwestern Louisiana, Mike Nesbitt-McNeese St, Ronnie Thompson-Lamar. If they can be included then please allow Tim Rebowe to stay on wikipedia. I feel he can be considered at the pinnacle of his profession as a college coach b/c he was also a head coach. Not everyone coaches in NFL. Many well-known and very well-respected football coaches stay at the college or even high school level. As an assistant college coach, your responsibilities include helping to win games, improve offense/defense/special teams, develop players for the NFL and recruiting players to your university. The articles and references show he won games, improved defense/special teams, put many players in NFL and is a top recruiter. Lastly, this helps expand the articles of 3 college football teams in wikipedia. More information on a topic the better, as long as it can be verified, correct? I know I'm not great at writing articles in Wikipedia, but I do know what a successful well-known assistant coach looks like. Once again, please help with this article b/c Tim Rebowe has the credentials required to be in Wikipedia. THANKS, Spatms (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC). Spatms (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Spatms. I appreciate your diligent effort to improve the article with sources, however, I still don't believe that the subject meets the threshold of notability according to WP:NCOLLATH, a notability standard which is the result of community consensus. Does Mr. Rebowe meet any of these criteria?

1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

If so, I will revise my !vote at AfD. Please keep in mind also that the fact that other similar articles have remained on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for adding more. It is perhaps a valid reason for nominating the other article for deletion, if they do not meet notability requirements. Best wishes. - MrX 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Rebowe meets criteria #3. #Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Thanks again for your help. - user: Spatms 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the article and do not see any national level coverage in any of the references. If you add some, please let me know and I will check again. - MrX 03:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I added multiple articles and coverage of him from ESPN, Fox sports, Baltimore Sun newspaper and Hartford Courant newspaper. This is in addition to local coverage. I also added an article that he was acting head coach at Nicholls State besides head coach at University of Louisiana-Monroe. Two head coaching jobs. - user: Spatms user talk:Spatms 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC).

Yardbarker.com ≠ Fox Sports. Except for the fourth source and the bios, each of those are trivial coverage. I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced that this individual's notability is such that an Wikipedia article is warranted according to WP:NCOLLATH and WP:ROUTINE. Of course, that's my opinion. I don't edit sports articles, so this in not my bailiwick. You may want to mention these additional sources at the AfD and see what other editors think. Good luck. - MrX 02:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kalyanasundaram

Hello! You participated in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram. You argued for keep, and the result was keep. Since then, doubt has been cast on some of the assertions made in the discussion and at the article. If you would like to participate in that discussion, it is at Talk:Kalyanasundaram. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Orthanc

Dear MrX, thank you much for your help on my article about Orthanc! I have just updated the article with your suggestions and started a talk about the article. Please could you check whether these improvements solve the problems you mentioned? Regards, S. Jodogne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's good that you have added references, but notability is established by reliable, independent sources, such as books, journals, magazines, news web sites and newspapers. Please see WP:RS for some additional guidelines. - MrX 13:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand of Doom

Recently I nominated articles "Rat Salad" and "Electric Funeral" for deletion and in the discussion you agreed that they should be deleted. I was going to nominate a 3rd article (Hand of Doom), but I felt it was well written and well sourced. On top of that, popular bands such as Slayer and Danzig have covered it on albums of theirs. What I'm asking is: could you go over the Hand of Doom article and give me your opinion of whether it's notable enough or not? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's well written, but no so well sourced. I could not find any in depth news items via Google, however, it may be notable if five other bands covered the song. Unfortunately, that also would need to be sourced. My inclination would be to AfD it and then perhaps someone else will be able to locate some sources. - MrX 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Be a STAR Alliance logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Be a STAR Alliance logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There are better ways

Throwing a level one template on a user talk page is not really the best way to go in this case. I didn't purposefully reinsert that information. When you have a fast breaking story like that, edit conflicts happen. It'd have been better if you actually typed out a comment or question, rather than resorting to such a generic warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the perceived offense. I was concerned because it seems as if you had added the same unsourced information about Lanza's father being found dead, even after I had removed it once as unsourced. The talk page template was used for expediency and nothing more. - MrX 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an opinion but I think you might be overdoing the templates. I'm not sure that Cotten person was trying to use the talk page as a forum, they may have been trying to simply make us aware of information to put in the article. They probably couldn't edit the article as it was protected. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective. - MrX 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you meant no harm, and it's easy for anyone to mess up when things are going as quickly they are right now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Red cross and other NGO's have gotten recognition for their good work in the pask

Just look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Non-governmental_organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostihuck (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the content that you added; in fact I edited it to try to improve upon it. However, it has been removed several times and you reinserted it several times. That is the definition of edit warring. I gave you the warning so that you could perhaps take the matter to the talk page, before someone reports you to AN/EW. - MrX 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Wikipedia is weird. I hope you use the links I've provided to continue the good fight. --Agnostihuck (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Armor-All Man

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For continually reverting stupidity and supporting intelligence on Wikipedia. You know what you are doing! Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Binksternet! I appreciate your thoughtful recognition. - MrX 03:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thx   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully my little edit helped. - MrX 18:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure did. If I weren't sitting on a tablet I would have done it myself. I'm somewhat soured on these articles, but I do keep a few select ones on my watch list. It's like a dose of heartburn when I see one popup. So when is your RfA going down?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Never. ...and you? - MrX 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Right after yours goes through.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Electric Funeral with no more discussion

It's been 6 days and the only ones who have contributed to the articles for deletion of Electric Funeral were you and I and we both decided to delete and redirect the page to Paranoid. Can I close the discussion or relist? If you think ut should be relisted you'd have to do that because I have no idea how to. Thanks --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it. I think it will be closed by an admin or uninvolved editor in a few hours. It's usually frowned upon to close a deletion discussion in which you have been an active participant. - MrX 23:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks!

Thanks for the gold, as well as for the citations! 72Dino (talk)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Amartyabag. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Iqbal Durrani, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Amartyabag

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Now this is getting disruptive. It's starting to look like you are the one on the soapbox. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No my friend, that's called editing to uphold our policies and guidelines in order to build an encyclopedia. If you disagree with the edit, please participate in the thread that I started on the talk page. - MrX 15:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I know how unproductive edit wars are and I'll desist from trying to put an image of the gun used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the article. I note, however, that many other shooting and massacre articles in Wikipedia show pictures of the weapons used. Moreover, the people who quibble about the image are gun enthusiasts who I believe will do everything in their power to keep the image from being seen in the article. Wikipedia articles about guns and gun carnage are dominated by gun enthusiasts. Respectfully, I think the encyclopedia is very weak in this regard. Cheers. Chisme (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I don't personally have much of an opinion one way or the other (perhaps slightly favoring inclusion) and I do see that you are trying to work it out on the talk page, which is good. Good luck! - MrX 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New article

It doesn't look like there is one other than what I've written.

PS thanks for being cool.

--Agnostihuck (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'm going to leave some links on your talk page that I think you find helpful, especially when creating new articles. - MrX 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks Sue! I hope you have a Merry Christmas as well. - MrX 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting formatting

To answer your question, the break was so that the footnotes would appear directly below the title and so that the title would be centered. The multiple reverts were because you changed the formatting in tiny increments and added unnecessary colons after each heading. This does not conform to WP:MOS for headings in general, and in my opinion, was not an improvement. - MrX 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but thanks. Also, you reverted an edit that had nothing to do with the victim's info box. Namely, where I added the "clear" command, after the photo of the White House moment of silence ... which I, personally, feel is indeed an improvement. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that; it was not intentional. I will exercise more care in the future. - MrX 23:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert and Unbalanced nature of Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Let's discuss it on the talk page

---

Dear Mr. X. You reverted my restore of 2,600 bytes of commentary on the NRA that Andythegrump had excised but you left the link to a ProGun Control Petition Page intact. Can you explain your logic of censoring one prominent group's reaction but leaving a ProGun Control Petition on the site? Appears to be very a very POV position you have taken with your revert and against what Wikipedia stands for. Concerning. Justanonymous (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove the petition because it's not new content (and therefore has consensus for inclusion). Also, it's a petition signed by many citizens as opposed to press conference statements made by a powerful lobbying organization.

I'm not opposed to including the NRA reaction, I just think it needs be shorter, and viewed through the lens of independent reporting and analysis.

In any case, let's discuss it on the article talk page so we can get other editors views on the content you wish to include. - MrX 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

a link to a petition for progun control on Wikipedia is marketing for political action which you have left intact while suppressing a significant activity by another organization that happens to be progun (they're all powerful lobbying groups). The evidence is that you are opposed to having NRA content as you have deleted the entirety of the content without any attempt at editing it to conform to a consensus view. I'll come to the talk page but in the end, I think that instead of block deleting and gang rollbacks, editors should work to retool language that is there vs simply blocking edits. This has an outward appearance to be in very bad faith and the tone of the talk page is extremely unfriendly which is further evidence of bad faith going on here.Justanonymous (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said that I didn't want any mention of the NRA's position; I mere suggested that there shouldn't be an entire paragraph that only covers their talking points. I am 100% with you on crafting a version that can be included (which we should do on the talk page).

Regarding the gun control petition: Feel free to take it out as far as I'm concerned. However, you will probably experience resistance from other editors. - MrX 04:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, you rolled back 2,600 bytes of NRA content that had already been crafted so obviously you do have a problem with NRA content as plainly evidenced by the logs. The NRA spoke out on the massacre today and that was eminently citable and 100% verifiable and NPOV and it balanced out the ProGun control entries which was good. The motto is for us to be bold and we are being bold and adding factual content the represents what is going on. Do you want me to craft another version so that you can roll that back too when Andy doesn't like it? I am distrustful. It wasn't even my section. I was just cleaning it up. Regarding the petition stuff, I don't want to revert some other editor's hard work and contributions, I was just looking for balance in good faith. Some people might want to go visit the ProGun control petition and that's fine by me too. Justanonymous (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, please discuss it on the Talk page - MrX 04:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to wade into this article, but I will ask this. Is this petition discussed by reliable sources?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. - MrX 04:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Kudos for you working on the article. I couldn't stomache the thing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a real treat, and a bit cathartic as well. - MrX 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to resolve an issue on Sandy Hook Elementary

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I am not qualified to give you this but I extend it to you anyway as sincere thanks. It is editors like you that restore my faith in Wikipedia. I don't know if what you proposed will make it into the language but you worked very hard a very big good faith effort to reach compromise. Thank you! Justanonymous (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve it, but thank you for recognizing that I was indeed seeking a resolution. - MrX 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-revert

Discussion by blocked Acoma Magic sock puppet

I'm requesting that you revert yourself at LGBT rights in Ecuador. I wrote that the activist group claims those things, not because the word "claim" is quoted in sources, but because their allegations against the clinics are claims and not necessarily factual. Zaalbar (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe I missed it when I read the sources, and perhaps we are taking about two different, but similar things. Can you please quote one or both sources to show that the sources say that... "Fundacion Causana began a petition on Change.org to entreat the Ecuadorean Minister of Health to close down over 200 "ex-gay clinics" which [Fudacion Causana claim] are known for starving, abusing, and torturing patients..." I will gladly self-revert as soon as you point me to a source for that. Cheers. - MrX 00:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC) A quote of "Fudacion Causana claim" isn't needed. The group claims those things in their allegations against the clinics. BTW, the specific wording I want attributed as a claim is found in the source about 2/3 down (or 1/2 when you click "see more") and seems to be the petition. Zaalbar (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) We are both talking about source [10], right? Here is the only text that I see that supports the work claim: "These clinics which claim to “cure” homosexuality have decreased in popularity in recent years yet still remain a horrific reality for many." As you can see, this does not support your edit. Here are the related sections of text from the source that I believe support my edit: "The end of women suffering physical and emotional abuse including sexual assault and torture in Ecuadorian clinics trying to cure them of being lesbian." "Fundacion Causana, a human rights group in Quito, Ecuador has been working on behalf of countless women being help against their will in hundreds of these underground clinics." "After over 100,000 people around the world signed the petition on Change.org, the Ministry of Health was ready to meet with Fundacion Causana and take responsibility for the violence against LGBT." "After ten years of outcry, the nation of Ecuador- through the Ministry of Public Health- has entered into a commitment with civic organizations and society in general to deconstruct the belief that homosexuality is an illness and root our the use of torture in these clinics." To recap, the source does not say that Fundacion Causana claimed anything, so we can' have that original research in the article. - MrX 00:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I don't really understand what you mean. The source/petition says "Petition by Fundacion Causana" up the top. Therefore, it is a claim by that group. Zaalbar (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC) No, a petition is not a claim, it is a call to action backed by the people who sign it. Our policies regarding original research do not allow us to call a petition a claim, especially when using a primary source (the petition itself). - MrX 01:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) No, a petition can be a claim or can contain claims. This petition contains claims and presenting them as fact is against our policies. I don't want to go through an RfC; can you direct me to a board that can deal with this? Zaalbar (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC) My best guess would be WP:DRN or WP:ORN. - MrX 01:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Okay, opened a section at ORN. Zaalbar (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Please see my response to your note on the User talk:Chisme page. It works both ways. You shouldn't be threating individual editors with being blocked. --Zeamays (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is. Edit warring warnings serve a purpose, and editing blocks are the consequence if edit warring continues. Am I missing something? - MrX 13:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't threaten anyone. MrX simply stated policy and every editor has the right to make those posts - they are very, very common "friendly warnings" on Talk Pages from non-administrators throughout Wikipedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. It isn't polite to issue dire warnings as an initial response, here on Wikipedia or in person. --Zeamays (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in on the Robbie Parker comment and reverting it! HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. The content seemed more appropriate for Wikiquote. - MrX 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi MrX, would you be willing to offer a response to my notes on the inclusion of Robbie Parker's quote? I'd like to better understand your reasons for removing it Leighblackall (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I just did. - MrX 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent editing history at LGBT rights in Ecuador shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. And before you protest, here are the diffs: [2][3][4] Belchfire-TALK 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to use a template here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Newbie Question

Hi Mr. X - You helped me a few months ago and I have an edit question. There's a banner on a page I edited that says: This section may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (November 2012) . Once I tweak it, how do I take that off? Thanks very much... Miss Sarta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misssarta (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Missarta. I assume that you are referring to the Chuck Philips article. If so, simple go into the edit window and remove this text:

{{reorganize|section|date=November 2012}}

I hope that helps. - MrX 18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of quotes on conversion therapy

Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you delete your poll before anyone responds and change it to Option 1,2,3 instead? I'm on a tablet or I'd do it myself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like that horse has left the gate while I was away for a few minutes. I'm not sure why three options are necessary anyway, since the option being polled was the version that you suggested. I'm really trying to find some common ground, and your suggestions seemed like the most favored. - MrX 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I just think presenting options is more helpful then a binary option.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Saturnalia, Festivus and Seasons Greetings

Wishing my Wikipedia friends all the joy and magic of the season.

May your hearts be warmed by one another, and may peace and goodwill reign the world over. - MrX

Amazing

This is a very nice Talk page. How'd you get the formatting here? 72.135.10.241 (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 72.135.10.241 and welcome to Wikipedia. If you click on the edit tab above, you can see some of the formatting code. Most of the formatting is transcluded from this page. I borrowed my inspiration from Teammm, as well as other users. Cheers! - MrX 00:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that HTML was allowed here. Thanks, MrX! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.10.241 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)