User talk:MrX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Talk to Me Tools Articles Photos
MrX talk tools articles photos


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

@Collect: I certainly did not intend to edit war, and I don't think I have crossed 3RR, but I may have missed something. Would you be so kind as to provide diffs to four reverts that I have made in a 24 hour period? Many thanks.- MrX 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. [1] 16:59 et seq
  2. [2] 19:40
  3. [3] 20:08 et seq
  4. [4] 21:02
  5. [5] 23:40

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

Are you serious Collect?
  1. Yes, this is a revert, although not a wholesale one.
  2. This is adding new content (sources), not reverting. However, you did subsequently revert my edit here.
  3. This one is especially absurd. I corrected a title in a cite, changed the date format on cites that I previously added, and I added information to the cites that I previously added.
  4. Again, this is adding new content. Why would you ever think this is a revert?
  5. This trivial change of your grammar error from "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded leader David Duke." to "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded by David Duke.", in practice this would not count as a revert, and it certainly isn't edit warring.
I'm deeply troubled that you would raise this issue with me. Essentially, there is one revert in the diffs you listed. I suspect that you wish this to have a chilling effect to keep me from editing Mr. Scalise's biography. Or perhaps it is meant to teach me a lesson for warning you of your own unambiguous edit warring. In either case, I believe it's petty and vexatious, and indicative of an obvious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that I've observed in you for several years.
Collect, please consider this a good faith warning to stop this nonsense and start editing collaboratively; stop edit warring; and stop twisting policies and wikilawyering to suit whatever personal agenda you have. If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to escalate these issues, as I believe they are ultimately harmful to the project. Thank you.- MrX 13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I was tripped once on a "one letter change" and if you read WP:EW it does indeed say that even a single letter may be counted as a "revert". Cheers -- Hold yourself to the same standards to which you wish to hold others. Meanwhile I suggest that you recognize that my note was polite and not a template - which I trust you noted but forgot to mention. Collect (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate your polite warning, however, you have not addressed the substance of my rebuttal to your accusation. If we have admins who are blocking people for changing one letter (assuming it doesn't materially change meaning), then that's a pretty clear abuse of their authority and a disregard for the purpose of WP:EW which is to encourage collaborative editing and discourage disruption.
If you sincerely believe that I was edit warring, I implore you to open a case at WP:EW/N or WP:ANI, because if my edits on Steve Scalise are actually considered edit warring, then I will no longer be contributing to this project. Best.- MrX 13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
For future reference

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


Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Thank you.- MrX 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And the WP:AE posting as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Is there anything in my comment "WP:BLPSPS advises against using blogs as BLP sources, however it was my recollection that this was not a hard rule,..." that would lead you to believe that I don't grasp that at this point? We shouldn't castigate people for making honest mistakes, especially after they admit such.- MrX 18:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not meaning to castigate, I interpreted your statement to mean you still held that opinion that it wasn't a hard and fast rule, so I was trying to clarify. I think its likely neither of our reports are going to go anywhere. I hope we can continue to work together productively in the article.
My main issue with the article is this. Imagine this was something about Obama, that an anonymous poster put on a marxist website saying obama did something a decade ago, then a random blog (conservative treehouse?) picked it up, and then that was echoed out by Fox, NRO and other conservative media. What would your argument be about the ultimate sourcing of this and how that affects the entirety of the issue.
For a (real) analogous issue, how much coverage does Obama launching his Senate career from the house of a terrorist get in his article? Oh, I think the answer is none, yet that was also covered by numerous reliable sources. (And yes there are extenuating circumstances and people who disagree on characterization. Just like this issue)
I'm not saying we shouldn't cover this incident. But there is a pretty clear double standard on whats notable/reliable for a conservative vs whats notable/reliable for a liberal, and it shouldn't dominate the article like it does now. It needs to get trimmed to 2-3 sentences. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I consider you a valuable editor and would like us to be able to edit collaboratively. You tend to be considerable more aggressive with reverting than me, which makes it less likely that my edits stick. I would be willing to retract the 3RR/N report if you would agree to limit yourself to no more than one revert in a 24 hour period, of any non-vandalism edit made in the previous seven days. I would of course agree to hold myself to the same restriction.
FWIW, I agree that there is a systemic bias with regard to conservative viewpoints on Wikipedia, which results in somewhat of a double standard. The way to change that is with solid reasoning, consensus building, and compromise. Anyway, let me know what you think of a mutual 1RR restriction on this article for, let's say, the next 30 days.- MrX 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you proposing a general 1RR, or a "Azrel-style" specific edit 1RR? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. Here would be the rules:
  1. The restriction applies to Steve Scalise
  2. Only one non-minor revert (with the sole exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism) is allowed in any rolling 24 hour period
  3. A revert counts as any edit which removes, substantially changes, or alters the meaning of any edit made by any editor in the previous 7 days (168 hours)
  4. Fixing grammar/spelling/punctuation, formatting, fixing refs, and other gnomish edits do not count as revert (removing entire citations counts as revert)
  5. The 1RR restriction would end until 00:00 GMT on the 31st day from when we agree on this
  6. Proxy editing is obviously not allowed
  7. The restriction can be lifted, or extended, at any time, by unanimous mutual agreement
  8. Violation may be reported for admin action
You in?- MrX 19:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Great! I will notify EW/N.- MrX 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for writing Hügelkultur! Bananasoldier (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thanks for the cookie!- MrX 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

Gaming the system[edit]

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

Pardon me?- MrX 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

unreliable sources?[edit]

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

It's not actually a warning, it's a cleanup notice. Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article.
I placed it because some of the article's sources don't quite meet our standard for reliability (see WP:RS). For example is a self-published source. Several are commercial websites, so of course their reviews are somewhat suspect. Some appear to be blogs, and some seem to merely exist to promote certain artists, possibly generated from press releases. Anyway, it's not a substantial issue, but a few more solid sources would be helpful. Here is one source that would probably be considered reliable. and possibly this one. - MrX 14:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Request[edit]

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


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

T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The article I created earlier[edit]

Hello there,

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

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

Peru women's national basketball team[edit]

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

The source does not seem to have anything to do with the Peru/Columbia/Ecuador women's national basket ball team. Call it a gut instinct, but I suspect that the user who created the articles is this user Unfortunately, I have limited time right now to fully investigate.- MrX 17:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the SPI and am not familiar with that particular master. However, the Peruvian source seems to support the article. That's the only one I really looked at. The source starts off talking about the men's basketball team, but lower down it mentions the women's.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now. I've reverted myself.- MrX 20:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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

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

It was the response to this: . I was going to go back and inform everyone that responded to that thread, but that might be overkill. But that is why.Casprings (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Heather Bresch[edit]

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

I looked at it. The controversy section is too large compared with the rest of the bio. Your draft seems to be an improvement overall. It sounds like you will have to discuss the content piece by piece on the talk page in order to gain support for your copy edits.- MrX 02:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
What I had suggested on the Talk page was implementing the majority of my draft and leaving the controversy separate for individual discussion. Does that sound ok? Nomoskedasticity, who I believe originally authored the excessive controversy, hasn't responded to that suggestion for over a week. I kinda thought he/she might have been waiting for input from others, like FreeRange who commented, but said they were too busy to get more involved. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds OK to me. I am also too thinly spread to get involved in the article.- MrX 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing visual info from an archived TV episode[edit]

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

Hi Ailemadrah. I'm not certain, but I would think that you describing what you saw on the video may be considered original research. In the example you raise, it would probably be OK (per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BLUE) to say that "Mary Catherine's attic workroom contains fabrics and findings which she used to make her quilts", if the video identifies the room as an attic workroom and you see here assembling quilts in there. However, in your construct, "packed" is an opinion (yours). "Finding of every kind" is not really encyclopedic wording. It would be better to say "a variety of findings". "Vintage fabrics" could be a problem, unless it can supported by another source.- MrX 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you, as always. Ailemadrah (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Leelah's Law[edit]

30 days?! When the hell are discussions required to stay open for 30 days?! Standard deletion discussion length is 7 days, and I see no reason whatsoever to keep it open longer than people are commenting. I know very well there is a discussion going on, as I started it. But there is also no reason to require an admin, as unlike deletion, no admin permissions are required to make changes. I'll leave the discussion a few more days to see if anyone else comments (not stagnation for three more weeks), but there is a clear consensus that the topics are related and should be merged, and moreover this article has zero unique information that warrants a separate article. Reywas92Talk 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Woxsen School of Business[edit]

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

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


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

I think I'll just stick with the Vicia faba and a juice box. Smiley123.png - MrX 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

editing Daniel O'Keeffe (commissioner)[edit]

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

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