User talk:MrX: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 20 August 2015

MrX


MrX	talk	articles	photos

Archives

2011

July - September

2012

2013

2014

2015

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I am using rollback to revert massive, misguided changes per ROLLBACK, fifth criteria which reads "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". See this discussion.- Mr X 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the more recent ones. Thank you so much for all your help on this! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Glad to help Ebyabe. I have rolled back several hundred in Florida and Washington. There are quite a few articles in other states that hopefully will be taken care of by other editors eventually.- Mr X 17:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your commitment to our pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Hugh!- Mr X 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Cs california (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Jeb Bush

You have been edit warring today at the Jeb Bush article, refusing to engage in discussion at the article talk page, deleting an image that has been stable since June 22, and incorrectly assessing consensus. Please stop or you may be blocked from editing. Also, please be aware that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions.

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 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.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't refuse to engage on the talk page. I made my views clear in the RfC, as did four other editors who happen to agree with my edit. Conversely, only one other editor agrees with your choice. Please explain to me how that is "incorrectly assessing consensus". "Stable since June 22" is not grounded in policy. Does it occur to you that your aggressive editing is what kept that image in the article since June 22?

Also, giving me a DS alert right after I alerted you and using my own words like you did, is more than a little immature.- Mr X 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI would now be the best venue to continue discussing this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

You are the subject of an ANI discussion which you may access by clicking your mouse here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Hi, MrX. I have closed the Collect AE request and imposed a block plus a one-way interaction ban with you. I saw no justification for making the ban mutual, but I trust you realize the responsibilities a ban like that places on you. Many people would be quick to react if they thought (with or without justification) you were taking advantage of the situation in any way. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen.- Mr X 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Cookies!!! - Mr X 19:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkan Wars

Hi! Just want to say I agree with your idea on how to deal with the ethnic conflicts. Looking at Talk:Nikola Tesla it's amazing how much time and effort of ordinary editors are wasted on them. Another effect of such feuds is that they scare off objective, nonpartisan editors from participation in articles where they are needed. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. That's why I proposed a topic ban, although an outright ban or indefinite block is very possible as well.- Mr X 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Echosmith

WP:DOB reads in part ..sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. The members of the band have listed their full names and birth dates in various social media posts, therefore the presumption is they do not object to the information being public. Nyth63 15:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links that would be usable as sources? If the band's website links to the social media profiles where these social posts have been made, then they can be used. If not, then we must have some other way to establish that the social media profiles belong to the BLP subjects, such as a listing in an ironclad source. Let's continue the discussion on the article talk page.- Mr X 15:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing the 3RR rule and misinterpreting the PRIVACY rule. The birth dates were in the article for an extended period of time and were removed recently by another editor which I restored and then added sources. Your last change was to wrong version. You certainly did NOT receive a consensus from a discussion on the talk page. Please restore the information. Nyth63 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restore improperly cited BLP content, nor should you. Please see my comments on the article talk page.- Mr X 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am claiming exemption from 3RR under the vandalism rule. The last edits by TheRedPenOfDoom should not have been made while the discussion is on-going. There have now been FOUR different editors trying to remove the same information from the article. That is an edit war. I am only reverting the unwarranted and non-consensus edits. Nyth63 01:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read NOT VANDALISM and rethink your position. Editors are routinely blocked for exactly the type of editing that you have engaged in today. I'm sure you mean well, but you're being obstinate and you're ignoring the consensus evident in the fact that four editors have reverted your edits.- Mr X 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuBose disruption

I asnwered the call when you asked for help here. Now I'm in need of similar help on the same artlce. The IP is being way too aggressive, very often using extremely poor reasoning and judgment, and violating AGF, and at this point I'm the only one resisting him. The article enjoyed relative peace until he showed up, and now I'm being steamrolled by an editor who has 12 edits prior to 24 July. I have issued two template warnings in the past 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I was just reading the talk page and trying to wrap my head around the various recent discussions. If you will give me about 60-90 minutes to take care of some RL tasks, I'll join in.- Mr X 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-sentence paragraphs

Re this, do you have an aversion to single-sentence paragraphs? As I said in talk, I feel that's the most important sentence in the section, and setting it off adds emphasis and reduces the likelihood it will be missed. It's probably not worth debating in article talk, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but I don't know whether you saw my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all and I don't follow any firm rules. My criteria is that if it is closely related to the previous paragraph and doesn't change the topic, then it can be included in the previous paragraph. In this case I think it fits nicely in the previous paragraph, but I also wouldn't object to it being included in the subsequent paragraph that begins "In bodycam footage, Tensing repeatedly...". All that said, I don't feel strongly about my edit.- Mr X 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hi, Spotify not working on windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.90.31 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Why are you telling me?- Mr X 23:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about my village Mona Syedan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Information about my village Mona Syedan. Since you had some involvement with the Information about my village Mona Syedan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JZ CL 09:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders

You reverted my edit on Bernie Sanders saying that it was not in the article cited that Sanders was a member of the Socialist Party of America. In the article it says that while at the University of Chicago, he was a member of the Young People's Socialist League. YPSL was the youth organization of the Socialist Party of America, and it is is currently the youth organization of the Socialist Party USA. Thanks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the 'party' field in template:Infobox officeholder is for the current party to which the subject belongs. I don't think it's appropriate to list an organization that Sanders was a member of 55 years ago. If you disagree, you may want to raise it on the article talk page to see what other editors think.- Mr X 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I see old party affiliations listed. See Elizabeth Warren for example. I'll mention it on the talk page. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Zachary Hammond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oconee County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

X-cellenz
Thank you, editor with the simple goal "to help expand this global repository of free information" and "ever-vigilant crusader against vandalism, spam, misinformation and incivility", for quality articles on places and "unclassifed" such as 1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg, for welcoming, warnings and bonus points, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 940th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Gerda, you're a gem. I hope I never ever stop being precious! Be well. - Mr X 00:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samamtha Giles (golfer)

Dear Mr X, why have you proposed to delete the article Samamtha Giles (golfer). Multiple references have been provided to authenticate it. Please could you provide advise or shall I remove the deletion notice. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cornish Golfer (talk • contribs)

@The Cornish Golfer: Because when I proposed the article for deletion it had no references. WP:BLPPROD allows articles about living people without references to be deleted. Since you have since added references, the article will not be deleted. You can disregard or delete the deletion notice on your talk page.- Mr X 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Image

Thanks for being more professional about it, I'll concede to what you think is best because of how professional it was written. Best regards. Sovietmessiah (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Happy editing! - Mr X 14:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission templates

Hi. I noticed in this version of Draft:Albert Thain that the AFC template you added carried a notice just above the green "Submit" bar: "Warning: This submission is not timestamped and so will be permanently at the back of the queue. Please replace this template with {{subst:submit}}." As "Subst:submit" would actually put it in the queue, I replaced it with {{subst:AFC draft}}. With that and "subst:submit", you need to add the author's name as a parameter, otherwise the system thinks you are the author. I'm not that familiar with these templates, and have to look them up at Template:AFC submission. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks so much for letting me know. - Mr X 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (2017 film)

Hi, can you please stop redirecting Coco (2017 film) to Coco (movie) please as the first is the better article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)

Yes, once I realized that you implemented the reverse redirect at almost the same time, I self-reverted.- Mr X 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, Coco (2017 film) is the better article and shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased writers are allowed to give biased opinions as fact

All of the political pages are 100% biased in one direction. This is why no one will ever accept info on Wikipedia as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave812 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

You remarked on my talk page that I should not have marked Vechoor church as reviewed. Sorry for the error. I was waiting the recommended ~10min delay before PRODing for notability.MopSeeker Fox Three! 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's best not to mark a new article as reviewed until you have either nominated it for CSD, AfD, or PROD; added cleanup tags; or you have evaluated that the article meets our basic standards for new articles (notable, sourced, categorized, etc.). - Mr X 02:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for flushing out the sock puppets pushing the nationalist POV at the Tesla article. Michael Cambridge in particular has been extremely disruptive and has been using the mantra "I am not a sock puppet" and really just accusing anyone who won't share his revisionist beliefs of being anti Croatian. While I am sure this person will come back in another form this will improve things for a while. Chillum 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Chillum, I'm glad to help. Most of the credit goes to Bbb23 who determined that Michael Cambridge is the master of the two socks, not Asdisis, although I still think there is a relationship between Michael Cambridge and Asdisis.- Mr X 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think they are the same person based on their different levels of literacy I would say that they seem to be coordinating. Chillum 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush

Did you read the article that was cited?

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 :Sure, {{U|Chillum}}, I'm glad to help. Most of the credit goes to {{U|Bbb23}} who determined that Michael Cambridge is the master of the two socks, not Asdisis, although I still think there is a relationship between Michael Cambridge and Asdisis.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 ::While I don't think they are the same person based on their different levels of literacy I would say that they seem to be coordinating. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:LightCoral">Chillum</b>]] 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
+== Jeb Bush ==
+Did you read the article that was cited?