User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2016

I thank you very much

Approximately one hour ago, you helped me very much delete a momentary mistake of mine. Please have a great day!! from Seoul, Korea Kimsuzu (talk)...12:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi MrX,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Gulf Fritillaries Mating 0019.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 23, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. Much appreciated! - Mr X 13:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton email investigation

With regard to discretionary sanctions, and in the hope that Wikipedia moderators do not have immunity from reasonable editorial standards, you should reconsider removal of sources within which solid sources are cited. Furthermore, the Hillary_Clinton#Email_controversy section is glaringly lacking regarding her long history of e-mail misconduct.JLMadrigal @ 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on the article talk page so that we don't have to have this discussion in two places.- Mr X 16:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWS

It is not vandalism. We have no need for a link for something like campaign material. It is easily referenced and found on the internet with a search. Please you have added campaign and fluff material back in that has no place in an encyclopedia. This is fact based. Also, no need to name her parents three times and tell us she was in this after school activity. The article read like a fluff piece and you blanketly reverted all edits is vandalism. If a link was broken then you fix it. Thank you for your help todayXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing external links under the premise of them being dead links, when they are not, is vandalism. The rest of the material that you removed has been built by multiple other editors who collaborated and follow consensus. If you want to remove that material, you must get consensus on the article talk page. Edit warring will get you blocked.- Mr X 15:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicky about colons

Using two colons (instead of one) for indentation is not excessive, and it clearly indicates who is responding to whom.[1] Your time and effort might be better spent trying to comprehend WP:BLP than enforcing trivialities and writing insulting edit summaries. Cheers! 😜Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your erratic indentation makes it difficult to follow discussions, and it's disruptive. If you want to color outside of the lines, buy a coloring book and knock yourself out.- Mr X 20:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the admin I linked to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you linked that diff, or why I would "take it up" with an admin. Is following such a simple, widely-accepted convention that much of an imposition for you?- Mr X 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the admin (at that diff) said, "To indent a sentence so it is seen as response to a comment above it, use one or two colons". You really don't see any relevance? If there are nine colons in a comment, and someone responds with eleven colons, it's no big deal. I am not going to worry about whether I counted a bunch of colons exactly in order to please you MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)My approach FWIW: 1. WP:THREAD provides guidelines on indentation. 2. Good indentation practices enhance readability. 3. Good readability enhances communication. 4. Good communication enhances the encyclopedia. 4. Many, many editors fail to indent correctly. Many aren't even aware of how to do it correctly. Therefore bad indentation is widsespread. 5. We can't correct everything without seeming like a disruptive OCD pedant, as well as using time that would be better spent on other things. 6. If you see indentation that is so bad that it really needs correction, correct it with an edit summary like: Corrent indents per WP:THREAD and WP:TPO bullet 7. No need for confrontational editsums, and in fact they are counterproductive. The bad indenters may see your edit. If they see it, they may improve their indenting practices. Or they may not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. Most people seem be able to follow the very simple convention of indenting. It's not that hard.- Mr X 21:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you feel your approach will result in overall better indentation at Wikipedia, that people are more likely to improve because you used confrontational and condescending language, you don't understand human nature. That's my opinion, but it's my strong opinion and empirical observation appears to support it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless devotion to the Wikipedia project. Thank you. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Somedifferentstuff. That's very kind of you!- Mr X 23:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for Donald Trump

Hi, MrX, thanks very much for alerting KINGOFTO to the discretionary sanctions relevant to Donald Trump. I wish more people posted those alerts, it would make admins' jobs easier. I've re-templated him, though, so that he's told about the American politics and BLP decisions — it may be farfetched, but I worry he may get away with disregarding the notice if he doesn't get the right links. (OTOH, I don't worry that he removes those templates, as he no doubt will with mine too. That's on him.) For future reference: if you replace "topic" in the template {{subst:alert|topic}} with the standard initialism for the subject area in question, it will link correctly. In this case, those are ap and blp — there's a list of them here (scroll down). Thanks again! Bishonen | talk 04:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, thanks for catching that! I have the AP DS alert template in twinkle as a custom warning with the correct AP parameter. A couple of days ago I learned that if you put anything in the "Linked article" box, the template's topic parameter will be ignore. I fixed a couple of my mistakes but obviously forgot to correct the alert I gave to KINGOFTO. - Mr X 15:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Here I was just thinking of putting in a few of the most common DS alerts in my own Twinkle prefs, as I'm getting quite tired of hand-crafting them. But it sounds dangerous! Bishonen | talk 15:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, dangerous, yes, but it's really helpful to have those templates in Twinkle and it works pretty flawlessly once it's set up correctly (which took a bit of experimentation). For example, the following, entered exactly as written under "Template name (no curly brackets)" in custom warning templates

alert|ap|2=If you have questions, please contact me.|sig=no

Produces the desired alert. Of course, you can change ap to any other DS code.

You can preview it like any other Twinkle warning, but you have to attempt to add the alert, then check the log for prior alerts, cancel the alert, and then attempt to add the alert again. It's really simple once it's setup. I could never remember the template format and always had a hard time finding it, which is why I added to Twinkle. - Mr X 12:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello MrX. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing ungrace

How dare you accuse me of valdalism, for an edit correcting hyphens to ndashes per MOS:NDASH. And are you even aware of the new MoS concerning yr abbrevs in dateranges (per WP:DATERANGE). To accuse of vandalism on a good-faith (and in this case also correct) edit is hyper uncivil/bad faith and considered pretty serious fault. You don't know these things?! IHTS (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How prejudiced, aggressive, wrong, and uncivil. (You are an experienced WP editor??) IHTS (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IHTS. Welcome to my talk page!

I didn't accuse you of vandalism; I accused the user who made the edit before your edit of vandalism, thus the 'and' in my edit summary. The reason why I included your edit in the revert was becuase your edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC."

Do you really think it was wise to revert my edit as you did, in light of the discussion at WP:AE#Ihardlythinkso?- Mr X 18:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that *now* (what you thought was vandalism), for such serious accusation, perhaps you shouldn't combine rationales in editsum, which can be confusing & ambiguous, it certainly was for me. And I could ask *you* the same Q: Do you really think it was wise to revert my edit as you did, in light of the discussion at WP:AE#Ihardlythinkso? And FYI, from WP:DATERANGE: Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used [...] in infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column). IHTS (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Shep Smith

Time to request semi-prot do you think? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an excellent idea. Permanent WP:PC1 is another option.- Mr X 14:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, except recently a number of otherwise good editors/admins I have seen accept wholely unsuitable pending revisions on BLP's. To be fair they dont usually work in BLP's so they are probably not familiar with the standards of the BLP policy, but I dont think Pending is working as intended at the moment. Or rather, I dont think everyone who should have the review accepted rights has them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point.- Mr X 15:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Right

CNN is being sued for exactly the nonesense you are putting in the wikipedia article. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/306106-breitbart-news-planning-lawsuit-against-major-media-company

--Bongey (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're making a veiled legal threat meant to have a chilling effect on my editing. See WP:NLT. What you call "nonsense" is well-sourced content and your mass removal of it is very problematic. Please use the article talk page.- Mr X 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I have create some article plz check
St. Peter's College, Akbarpur
Jai Bajrang Inter College, Ramnagar
Makrahi, Ambedkar Nagar — Preceding unsigned comment added by S..Yash (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

I accept your point that talk pages are for improvement of the article, so it's fair enough that you closed that discussion. However, I am curious as to why you said "no, you're incorrect". Would you care to explain? It's pretty clear that the root "homo" means mankind, not homosexual. Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't. I think you're trolling, but if I'm wrong, then you are very misinformed about this subject. I suggest consulting some books, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, or asking a parent or teacher to explain it to you.- Mr X 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you think I am trolling. I assure you I am not. But the facts are the facts. I understand that the word "homophobia" is commonly understood to mean hatred of or prejudice against homosexuals. All I am saying is that the statement in the FAQ is not correct as it claims the roots of the word imply "fear of homosexuals" While I agree that "phobia" means "fear", it is not the case that "homo" means "homosexual" (apart from in a derogatory, slang usage). "homo" comes from the Greek meaning "mankind" Therefore, the roots of the word "homophobia" imply "fear of mankind" not "fear of homosexuals" It's a perfectly simple point. PointOfPresence (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to lobby to dictionaries:[2][3][4][5][6]. To be clear, I'm not interested in reading your pedantic etymological theories. Please keep them off of Wikipedia.- Mr X 16:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I know what the definition of the word is. So quoting dictionaries at me is pointless. The fact remains that the FAQ is incorrect as written. The fact that you have offered to evidence to refute that suggests that you (no doubt reluctantly) accept it. Anyway, I shall sign off now and leave you in peace. PointOfPresence (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial College Theatre School

Why did you erase my whole page before even talking about it??? All the theatre schools in Toronto have Wikipedia pages. Why did you erase the one I was building??

George Brown Theatre School, Ryerson Theatre School, National Theatre School -- all have pages. I don't understand why you did this to a new member of the wiki community. I worked for hours on that page. Please put it back.

EVerhaer (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC) 22:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EVerhaer - Don't worry, your page is still in the database. Actually, it looks like you already retrieved it while I was making my crab cakes. (Cakes made of crab; not cakes for my crab).

You should read WP:YFA. We want articles about notable subject that can be referenced to independent reliable sources. Your article is about a program, within a school, at a college. That is unlikely to be a notable subject, so the article might be deleted unless you can add some independent reliable sources that discuss the program objectively. I'm willing to wait a few days before reviewing the article, but another editor may very well nominate it for deletion unless you are able to show that it meets WP:GNG. Good luck.- Mr X 23:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley High School

Stop editing the West Valley High School page and taking useful and factual information off of it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.214.196 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MrX. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi MrX/Archive. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello MrX/Archive,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Nicks

We're encouraged to be bold and add stuff if it's sourced. If someone reverts it then they ought to bring it up on the talk page. If they don't then I'll make a section to discuss any objections made.

Being reverted doesn't necessarily mean you are in the wrong, a lot of people revert anything they don't like regardless of it being sourced or not. Ranze (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure review

I started a post at ANI regarding your closure. Dan56 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. By the way, when you challenge a close, you should discuss your objections with the closer before asking for a close review, as explained at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging other closures.- Mr X 14:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well what more else is there to discuss? You objected to the only point I made in the edit summary reverting you. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that you would either you accept that RfC's are not a vote count and concede that there was no consensus, or expand your argument to support your (presumed) interpretation that there was consensus. I would then further explain how I weighed the arguments to determine that there was no consensus. Then, if you still think I ignored important information or wrongly interpreted policy, you could request a close review. - Mr X 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're argument is that the number of votes is irrelevant then? Dan56 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not irrelevant; it's just a minor factor in weighing consensus. - Mr X 17:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the votes were accompanied by explanations, which makes those six users (versus the other three) more than just votes, no? What else is needed in determining consensus? The closer's assessment of those explanations? Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A good closer will always look at the strength of the arguments. ~Awilley (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the !votes were accompanied by explanations does not make them equal for purposes of weighing consensus. (see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE#Consensus, and WP:CNN) For example, the vote: "Yes the genres should be added back in the infobox." does not give any reasoning at all. Similarly, the comment by troublednbored does not address the ambiguity of whether the source was speaking of genres or influences, or referring to some songs or the entire album. Ojorojo made compelling arguments, as did most everyone else. The lack of consensus is best exemplified by your own remark: "We just differ on how we understand what he's saying, or the purpose/implciations of the genre field in the infobox, and you seem to be downplaying each source". It should not be surprising that this discussion would end in a stalemate, especially since it concerned the very contentious subject of genres in infoboxes.

A way forward would be to locate other sources and determine what the consensus is among the sources for the album's genre(s).- Mr X 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit

I've reverted your edit on the Breitbart article as there is no consensus yet. If you believe there is a consensus please reply to the Talk page, to avoid an edit war. Phatwa (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scudetto

Thanks. I didn't want to be bold and revert a move on en.wiki because I am mainly active on it.wiki and on Commons and not much into mechanisms on here. As for the discussion in the said page, I raised twice the issue in the last six years but nobody cared. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat, yf you have a good reason for doing it, I wouldn't hesitate to change the redirect, with a detailed edit summary to explain why. Could you refresh my memory: what article do you think it should redirected to?- Mr X 14:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr. X, basically it shouldn't be redirected :-) The Scudetto is a tricolour triangle (see the article on it.wiki) symbolizing the flag of Italy that is worn on the jerseys of a team which is the incumbent national champion of whatsoever sport. Currently the item Scudetto on en.wiki redirects only to the list of the Italian association football champions, but actually the Scudetto is not only a football award. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Blackcat, then you could just change the redirect to an article about Scudetto. You could even translate the itwiki article into English.- Mr X 01:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review my English here? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat, it looks good. I made a couple of minor idiomatic changes. - Mr X 12:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now what should I do? Either asking for deletion of Scudetto and moving the sandbox to the correct article or simply paste the sandbox content on Scudetto and detach the redirect? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 12:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a deletion and move. - Mr X 13:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now the article scudetto is consistent with the other ones in the other linguistic chapters. What's the request for the deletion of User:Blackcat/Scudetto? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that it be deleted. In the future, you can request deletion of pages that you create by using Twinkle → CSD → G7 or placing {{db-G7}} at the top of the page.- Mr X 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure".The discussion is about the topic Wurdi Youang. Thank you.Mitch Ames (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

So I should go ahead and gnaw on some newbies?- Mr X 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw one this morning that was a glowing resume of the editor. I didn't have the heart to bite, but it looks like the article [sic] was deleted, so somebody probably got bit.- Mr X 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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. If you have questions, please contact me.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers, you just violated Arbcom procedures by posting this wholly unnecessary and POINTY alert on my talk page. Had you followed instructions, you would have notices that I received such an alert just nine months ago. See WP:ACDS#alert.dup.- Mr X 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't see what was going on, uh, nine months ago. Just thought I'd return the same consideration you were giving me. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't issue alerts unless you understand their purpose and how to correctly issue them. This is not some silly game of payback.- Mr X 18:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Gwillhickers, "if apologies" are rude in themselves, see WP:NOTSORRY. Also it doesn't make any sense to insincerely apologize for 'not seeing what was going on nine months ago'. IMO, the thing to do would have been to apologize for ignoring the huge shouty pink template that appears every time you try to post a discretionary sanctions alert, and that exhorts you to check for previous alerts before clicking "save". Next time, please check the page history when you see the template. Also, bouncing back the alert to somebody who alerted you shows you in a poor light altogether, because MrX posting the template on your page actually shows he's already aware of the sanctions he warned you about, and therefore he doesn't need being told about them. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

OSC

I swear I'm not stalking - I just happen to watch the OSC article as well and saw this edit. Wasn't sure if you knew, but www.hatrack.com is OSC's website. So he is a reliable source for his opinion. It's a primary source, so no interpretation can be made, but it is an RS. It falls under WP:SELFSOURCE Morphh ^(talk) 19:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if it were sourced to one or more secondary sources to demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT, but feel free to revert it if you think best. I don't feel that strongly about it.- Mr X 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there and I don't feel strongly about it either. Morphh ^(talk) 20:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Chathamangalam-Wrong deletion of contents

Please make sure, while deleting the contents, that the material is completely without a source. It seems some of the deletions of the content belonging to the page Chathamangalam (Kannur) was done without proper research. A Citation needed tag would have saved such a fast deletion of the content, meanwhile someone would have contributed with ample source material in English. Please do rethink on your action.

Also, please do go into Thabore, a place adjacent to Chathamangalam (Kannur) and kindly explain why so much of unsourced data in that page without any citation. I can also show many such pages where there is no proper citation and yet no deletions happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evergreen Chathamangalam (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evergreen Chathamangalam: Your contribution history is very short and oriented around promoting the tiny village that bears your username, so you should not be dropping warnings on my user talk page. The source (added to the external links section) did not contain the information added to the article. It contained information about Ezhimala Hill.

If Chathamangalam is notable and the information that you have added has been written about, then you can cite the reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines, journals, news websites, gazetteers, government websites, and encyclopedias) that contain the information that you wish to add. It is core policy of Wikipedia that content must be verifiable. Please do the proper research, then add the material to the article with inline citations. Please do not add your personal recollections or original research.

If you have any questions or need guidance, I would be happy to help you.- Mr X 12:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how aware you are of the usual state of this area: but I used to routinely patrol this area when I started out in 2013...only to realise the futileness of my efforts. It is not uncommon that they're maintained by a single editor who's completely oblivious to our P&Gs. One major discussion I witnessed later here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_55#Indian_and_Pakistani_villages really put me off as well. TLDR: villages of these countries are hard to verify or fail GNG, poorly written, loaded with promotional content at times: so why not redirect them to the main lists like R to list entry. But no, a few opposes saying that would be "racist" in spite of most of the supporters being Indian editors like myself. Nowadays, the rare occasion when I do stumble on such an article, I only make a move if there's blatantly downright intolerable stuff like "So and so is the most awesome person in the village". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a shame. I've written quite a few articles about tiny cities myself, so I'm supportive of having an article about every documented geographic feature on earth, but not ones that don't even have a single source and are filled with the personal reflections and oral history of its residents.- Mr X 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX, Thanks for your quick reply. I did indeed go through your personal profile before making the above comments. Gland to learn that you are very much keen on protecting Wikipedia against vandalism. But then again, most of the content written were news items in leading vernacular dailies including Malayala Manorama My concern here is why pages like Thabore, just 4 kilometers away from and as tiny as the place in discussion is having 8000+ digits narration, all of which has come without any citation. Please go to the references of the same page and see any oth those links are in any way related to the particular village. I have got a lot of newspaper reports in Malayalam regarding all the content in the page, as a soft copy. Can you pls. tell me if I can use them as a citation ?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.28 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@112.133.236.28: can you please stay logged in to your registered account Evergreen Chathamangalam? Also, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ after each post.

Yes, Thabore does seem to have some unreferenced content, but it also has three books listed as references. I don't have access to the books, so I'm not sure if the material is actually in the books. Feel free to remove any content from that article that you not able to verify in the sources. Yes, you can cite newspaper articles (real newspapers, with editors and fact checking). The citations can be added inline with the material, and should minimally include the name of the publication, name of the article, author, and date. You can use template:cite news to format inline citations, or use one of the referencing tools like WP:ProveIt which you can access in your user preferences under gadgets.- Mr X 15:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, IPs don't have the ECHO notification feature, so mentioning them won't work. Use talkback instead. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thanks grasshopper!- Mr X 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello MrX/Archive,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

WP:RS

AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion.

I'm not sure who told you that, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a reliable source. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved admin can impose discretionary sanctions. It is often done without any discussion whatsoever. AE is merely a place to report it and provide evidence. It's not debate club; it's not ANI; it's not an RfC.- Mr X 17:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. haha - Mr X 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in a biography

Hello Mr.X, thank you for reading and tagging the article David Giorgio Mendes Nassi I wrote a while back. I've attempted to add new and informative citations to this article to hopefully satisfy the wikipedia requirements and would appreciate your feedback. I've encountered difficulties in citing alumni records and licensing details, as these are all fifty years old and not available online. Furthermore, I'm finding it hard to identify what facts actually require citation YonmaNm (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YonmaNm. It's OK to add some of his patents as references, but since the article is a biography, the sources should mostly be biographical. In other words, the sources should be about him, not by him. There's still quite a bit of content that is not properly sourced, for example:

"During his time in Ramat Gan, David practiced fencing and went on to become captain of the Israeli team. He won all national foil competitions in Israel between the years 1955 and 1963. He then joined the army and married his childhood friend, Nili Shmueli."

There needs not be a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, journal, book) that contains that information. It should be cited at the end of the sentence, or paragraph in footnote citation. I hope that helps.- Mr X 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Xperia E5 and similar articles

I have blocked all the IPs that have contributed to all these related articles and who are all editing from within 5 or 6 miles of the same UK geolocation. This is so obvious that besides the persistent removal of deletion templates, it is an attempt to evade 3R. The actual persistence in these edits can lead one to assume that it is spam or COI but it might not be easy to prove. I have not blocked the registered user in anticipation that they will in fact be caught in one of the IP blocks, so if they make an appeal for IP block exemption that will prove the obvious socking. We need to look out for the use of yet more IPs from that area. We can't do a range block there because they might well be public areas or hotspots, and not all are in the same IP ranges. I'll go back now and vote delete on all the AfD; if you have any thoughts , don't hesitate to drop me a line. I've also left this message at user talk:Robert McClenon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung. I will also have a look at the other AfDs once I have an opportunity. There does seem to be a COI.- Mr X 15:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for giving the admins a heads-up for me! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Scjessey. It sucks to have your account compromised like that.- Mr X 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]