User talk:MrX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


MrX
Home Talk to Me Tools Articles Photos
MrX talk tools articles photos

October 2014[edit]

Hello, MrX! You have undone some of my editions on the article Ark of the Covenant. You commented that the source is unreliable. I would like to learn why the source is unreliable and how to identify whether a source is reliable. Bruce Chen 0010334 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was largely based on the work of Ron Wyatt. His work is widely regarded as pseudoarcheology. If you wish to include such content, then it would have to be from a reliable source such as a book from a reputable publisher, a scientific journal, or a reputable news source. You can click on this link to learn what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.- MrX 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks a lot! : ) Bruce Chen 0010334 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Conservative Party (UK) people[edit]

There's a comment at Category talk:Conservative Party (UK) people that you might be interested in - also at Talk:Tracey Emin. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just had a go around with an editor who was trying to shoehorn another living person into that category.- MrX 00:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.[edit]

The entries for water ionizer are wrong. Blantantly. The science and research is extensive. Please justify this maility to me. Also, it is not pseodoscience. The eitor may sell water filters or ro. Wikipedia is losing validity. Ionization first began in the late 1800s in Rusia. In the 50s Japan took it on. Why is there no coverage of this extensive history and research?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueWaterSource (talkcontribs) 08:16, October 20, 2014‎

Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~~~~ (see WP:TPG)- MrX 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My amended statement at RfC[edit]

I've amended my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves to add additional detail and some links. I'm really under the gun at work and this RfC came up unexpectedly so I'm pressed for time to do proper strikethroughs, etc. Bbb23 had a good suggestion, that I notify anyone who's added an endorsement, so you can decide if you think you need to re-sign or remove your endorsement or make a different response. Msnicki (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your revised statement and the second to last paragraphs sums it up nicely.- MrX 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

threading your comment[edit]

Apologies that including the quote from ANI made it difficult to tell how to respond to my remarks. But you've inadvertently pasted your comment into the middle of mine. Could you be so kind as to move it to the end? Many thanks. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed it. When you quote someone, it may be a good idea to leave their signature out of the quote to avoid confusion. You can also use template:tq.- MrX 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Guilty. I'm just really, really pressed for time. Oof! Msnicki (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional diff[edit]

There is an additional diff that I would like DangerousPanda to reflect upon. In the interest of keeping the conversation more focussed, I was thinking it might be better for you to remain the sole spokesperson in the dialog you initiated and to present the diff. However, if you prefer that I do so, I can.

The diff is as follows: Last year, the following discussion of a block of PumpkinSky was held and closed. Subsequently, DangerousPanda commented there was "no consensus that the block was unwarranted", which I don't think is an accurate assessment of the conversation. I appreciate that it is difficult to read criticism of one's behaviour, and I believe DangerousPanda has the best intentions for Wikipedia in mind. Nonetheless, I hope that the editor can bear in mind, while reflecting upon the feedback of others, the possibility that any actions undertaken may not have resulted in a positive outcome, which I think should help with understanding critical comments. isaacl (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Isaacl: If nothing else, the RFC/U was rather consistent that only activities post my extensive, self-imposed break should be discussed. I appreciate the discussion around Pumpkin Sky, however, you're posting 1/90th of the entire discussion which means that specific link is taken well out-of-context, and has been addressed and clarified a dozen times since then. I have gone out of my way to make peace with Pumpkin Sky, and I am fully aware that my attempts have been appreciated by many members of this project the panda ₯’ 13:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Isaacl. Thank you for the suggestion. Obviously DangerousPanda is aware of the concerns surrounding his interactions with PumpkinSky as they are well documented. While I think they are highly relevant to the discussion that I started, the examples that I chose were more recent because they establish that the self-imposed admin break was not all that effective.- MrX 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My concern was not regarding the specific interaction with PumpkinSky, but with the disparity between the views expressed in the discussion I referred to, and DangerousPanda's summary of its consensus. This particular example has stuck out in my mind because the discussion was relatively quiet, even-handed, and unanimous. The conversation on DangerousPanda's talk page has focused so far on the language used; the issue I'd like to raise is taking some time to absorb any feedback given and not being too hasty in making assumptions. I am open to your suggestions regarding the best way to approach this. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree with your more accurate description of the situation. I think you would be in a better position to discuss it with him directly though, since I was not involved and only peripherally aware of it when it was happening.- MrX 23:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Topsy (elephant)[edit]

The Topsy (elephant) the elephant page has been edited to minimize "anti-Edison" bias. I thought I'd let you know because of a friend of mine has a student writing a paper on PT Barnum circus elephants and I don't want to go through the nightmare of trying to wrest a page away from Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Actually, stopped editing because of that.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a problem with the recent edits. Do you?- MrX 13:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

personal attacks[edit]

Where a talk page post is clearly and specifically aimed at an editor and makes unsubstantiated claims about an editor personally, it is a "personal attack." It was about the editor, and not in any way about improving the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Collect. There are degrees of what you might consider a personal attacks, ranging from a snide remark about the quality of an edit, all the way up to calling someone a tedious c**t. Vanamonde93's comment falls on the milder end of the spectrum. CFredkin, fresh off his fourth edit warring block took immediately to reverting content across multiple articles and edit warring on a least one other. Interesting that you would revert Vanamonde93's comment a second time after recently coming off your seventh block for edit warring. - MrX 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on showing how you regard your own user talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I am well aware of TPG. The reason I posted there was not because I wished to look at CFredkin's conduct in general, but because they were citing a guideline (BLPREQUESTRESTORE) on that page while refusing to follow it on another, and this behavior was very relevant to the page at hand. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No matter what you think of another editor, deal strictly with their edits and the contents of their posts, and not with personal claims that they must work for the subject etc. If you wish to make a charge of sockpuppetry, then file such a claim at WP:SPI. If you wish to assert that an editor has violated Wikipedia policies, then file a notice at WP:AN/I. Article talk pages are not a proper venue for such charges. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DP[edit]

Start here. I've done everything I can here and once again achieved nothing. A high school teacher once told me I suffered from overunderdoggerism. Nothing's changed, I guess, except that I've gotten better at accepting that there are some things and people I cannot change and that I am happier thinking about those I can. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best to drop it for now. I don't think you're going to get an apology or what you would consider a satisfactory explanation. Admins are almost never sanctioned for a single incident, unless it involves wheel warring or egregious conduct. My concerns are about DP's overall conduct as an admin, of which this incident is but a part. Hopefully something good will come of the ongoing discussion. Best wishes. - MrX 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, as you already know. I knew from the beginning this wasn't the sort of person who makes apologies, nor did I ever think there was any way to explain this satisfactorily. These were a bunch of poor choices and he got a poor outcome. It is what it is. What I had hoped is that I might someday have gotten to that part, the choices and outcome, not to get an apology or explanation, but an acknowledgment that he had other choices that likely would have produced a better outcome and that he should open to civil discussion along the way. The guidelines and several other editors tried to offer advice during the incident. He rejected all of it. But I got nowhere. If I can be helpful as a witness in the future, I'll stand up again, but I'd be surprised if it's a different outcome. Admins do not sanction other admins. An adminship is too precious to risk. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.- MrX

edit war[edit]

I suggest you self-revert. I would point out that a single revert is certainly acceptable - but saying that a "reliably sourced contentious claim" is present is clearly wrong. The "anti-gay" wording is specifically sourced as opinion to "EqualityMatters.org" and not to any reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the principle of keeping existing content until there is consensus to change it? There is an ongoing RfC. Can't you wait for that to finish? I'm pretty sure that I've seen you make the similar assertions on multiple other articles. I will respond to the rest of your comments on the article talk page.- MrX 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: I'm not sure if you noticed, but I provided a list of 13 reliable sources that support the "anti-gay groups" wording, with many more available. I assume that you will be changing your !vote accordingly.- MrX 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The term is contentious, and the sources furnished cite the wording as being from one group - making it the opinion of that group, and not a "fact" to be given in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You may want to check the sources that I provided again. Most of them do not attribute the term to any group but actually use it in their own voice just as we should.- MrX 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I did. They don't. Note that headlines are not part of any "reliable source." Collect (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken, but I'm more concerned with this policy about headlines not being part of any reliable source. Not only does that seem really odd, but I looked at WP:RS and could not find any mention of it. Could you please provide a link to the relevant policy that dictates that headlines are not part of any reliable source? Thanks! - MrX 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Headlines are written by headline writers - not by the journalists responsible for the article content. I suggest you read the discussions at RS/N and at talk for WP:RS on that. The exception is where the headline itself is notable ("Dewey Defeats Truman" is the general example noted) but using the headline often misrepresents the actual content of the source. If we use a source, we use what the journalist wrote - not what the headline writer wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A link would have been helpful, but after searching myself, I do concede that there have been meta discussions that suggest some level of consensus for avoiding headlines. It would be immensely helpful if that were recorded on the policy page. Of course this only disqualifies a couple of the sources that I listed on the article talk page, and there are literally hundreds more available. I haven't seen any independent sources that refer to the groups as "social conservative Christian organizations" in in the context of Winshape.- MrX 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there was an extensive, recent discussion and RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources on amending the guideline to prohibit headlines as reliable sources. You can find the discussion here. As you can see, consensus held that while "headlines should, at the very least, be treated cautiously and taken 'with a pinch of salt'", the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." It's really weird that Collect failed to mention that discussion, and that he's incorrectly asserting that "headlines are not part of any 'reliable source'."

Now, I'm sure Collect isn't being intentionally dishonest. I'm sure he's not purposefully misrepresenting a clear, unambiguous policy consensus to try to win a content dispute. I'm sure he's not trying to game the system to exclude properly sourced material which happens to be critical of a politically conservative agenda item. I suspect he simply forgot about the existence of this discussion, and its clear consensus that headlines may not be prohibited as reliable sources—even though the discussion happened a month or so ago and he participated heavily in it. Memories are funny like that.

Anyhow, you should know that there is no consensus prohibiting the use of headlines as reliable sources—quite the opposite. And on a more abstract level, you should know that when someone makes dubious assertions without providing any supporting links or evidence, a la Collect here, one should immediately be skeptical. MastCell Talk 00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- the exception discussed at the policy talk page was where the headline per se was the item of interest -- AS I MENTIONED ABOVE. Your snark about being "intentionally dishonest" here is --- pure snark. The discussion did, in fact, have a consensus that the headline is not part of a source as it is not written by the reporter as a rule. As an admin, you should be aware of how easy it is to make accusations which are not only inapt but blatantly inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, MastCell, for that very helpful information. I can't help but feel that I've been a victim of manipulation here. Collect confidently stated "Note that headlines are not part of any "reliable source." which is very different from "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." I wonder what is more likely; that Collect forgot a two-month-old discussion in which he made more than 20 comments, or that he was intentionally trying to deceive me to gain advantage in a content dispute. We may never know...- MrX 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And again Headlines are NOT part of a news article - they exist independent of the news article, and you might take note of the primary demurrer on that point - and I rather think you should quote the full close which did not state that headlines are part of a news article. Cheers. Snarkum in unum, snarkum in omnibus. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: You asserted to MrX that headlines are not reliable sources. You knew, or should have known, that your assertion was false. You knew, or should have known, that there is not a consensus for any sort of outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources. Yet you made this false claim anyway. I'm formally requesting an explanation for this behavior from you. MastCell Talk 04:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(od) Please READ before making anything of yourself. I stated that "headlines are not part of any reliable source" and the discussion was clear that headlines are, indeed, not a part of the reliable source. When used, they stand on their own as the headline. You strange insistence on saying this is "false" is unbecoming of any admin. That you consider this a "behavior issue" is unfortunate, but you have been heavily involved with me for an extended period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman[edit]

As an editor that recently edit Greg Orman, could you please weigh in at Talk:Greg_Orman#UNDUE. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, NE Ent 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will post a statement shortly.- MrX 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If it takes several days of sleep to recharge your batteries after a vacation, what sort of vacation was it, do you suppose? Msnicki (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I see DP has finally made a statement at the RFAR. I have no comment as to the veracity of his reasons for the long delay except to say that Wikipedia is not compulsory. An editor's sudden lengthy absence should never prevent vital processes like arbitration from progressing.- MrX 12:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof how bad you are[edit]

There'll be a drama-filled Arb case now, and ... it's all because of you!

(Funny!) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I was tempted to thank him for that edit. Msnicki (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'm on the wrong side now, whatever that means. Arbcom was not awaiting my discussion with DP (unless Arbom=Dennis Brown). They were waiting for DP's statement, which was apparently delayed by a vacation, in laws, hospital visits, internet connection issues, and something involving a kevlar vest.- MrX 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, MrX. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. Philg88 talk 10:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

additional link for you[edit]

[1] NE Ent 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.- MrX 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience[edit]

See the latest commentary on the talk-page and recent edits to the lead. I would like to know your input if you have any. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will, later.- MrX 13:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Myopia123[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but 2014 Ferguson unrest seems a cut-and-dried case of disruptive editing, and I don't know what to do at this point. Must I learn ANI process to stop this person? ‑‑Mandruss  20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fully up to speed on the situation but I will try to join the discussion in a couple of hours.- MrX 20:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Hands Up United for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hands Up United is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands Up United until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ferguson October for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferguson October is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferguson October until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

WikiProject Human rights invitation[edit]

Project Human Rights Logo EN.svg WikiProject Human rights
Dear MrX,

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Human rights, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the Human rights. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Thank you!

Hmlarson (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I will look into it.- MrX 00:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope you'll also consider adding a comment to the deletion discussions mentioned above. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe with Wardenclyffe Tower[edit]

I have opened a discussion. A comment from you would be appreciated there. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why remove wikilinks?[edit]

Can you please let me know why in this edit you removed the wikilinks I added to anode and cathode? 173.49.91.231 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@173.49.91.231: Because you added "which contains bleach" which is unsourced. Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE.- MrX 16:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is related to the wikilinks I added or why that would necessitate their removal. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for that. I should not have removed the wikilinks. Thank you for fixing it and for adding a source.- MrX 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks. I'm still trying to get the hang of things around here. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)