User talk:MrX

MrX

MrX	talk	articles	photos

4RR

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

@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)

alert

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Thank you.- MrX 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

blpsps

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

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!

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

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

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

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

unreliable sources?

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