User talk:MrX

MrX

MrX	talk	articles	photos

Arbcom Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel.2 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Thank you for the notification. I will not be able to add a statement for at least a couple of days. - MrX 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

a Recent edit on David and Jonathan

Recently, You undid an edit that I made to an article regarding some modern understandings of David and Jonathan potentially having a homosexual relationship. As cited when you removed the edit, the edit was made in good faith, to help deepen the understanding of the issue in the actual recorded Hebrew text. I am a Hebrew scholar who has studied the language, and felt that it was important to note this issue of language usage is something that many people who hold the view that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship are unaware of. The reality is, in the original language, which uses different words to describe different kinds of love, it is much clearer that the relationship was indeed one of devoted friendship, as apposed to romantic intimacy. I must say that while their are many issues within scripture that suggest homosexuality to not be a clear cut sin, The viewpoint that David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship may very well be, simply put, a sensationalist view of a biblical text in light of the growing controversy of homosexuality, absent of any real knowledge of the Hebrew language and its use in the Biblical narrative. While I apologize for not being able to cite a reference at the time, I nevertheless feel that this bit of information is important to that particular part of this article. When more time is available to me, I will be expanding on the issue from a scholarly perspective as a member, and trust that it will be respected as a counter point to the other perspective.

Thank you for message. Wikipedia requires that all content must be verifiable in reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is not a repository of original/unpublished thought, your analysis unfortunately can not be included in the article unless it appears in reliable, published sources (see WP:OR). I'm sure you understand that we have no way of knowing if you are actually a Hebrew scholar as you claim, or not, because user accounts here are anonymous.- MrX 19:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 4, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you

editing again :) Welcome back! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a nice break and now I have little more time to spend on my obsession hobby. - MrX 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT adoption

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT adoption, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay the reverting edit on that one page

This guy/girl has been trying to delete any deletion tags on that page period. (also has been adding this non existant person onto this film Dracula Untold page with different IP's) just someone to keep an eye for. Wgolf (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will keep a watch on it also.- MrX 17:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Social Management article

Oops, sorry about not providing any references! I'll try to add them later today. This is the first time I've created an article, mistakes were bound to happen, I guess. Thanks. Dombili (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Do your Research before Falsely Accussing

You need to take the time to look things over if you decide to get involved in accustions. Further false accussations will not be tolerated and promptly reported. WP:3R does not mean someone fixing their reference. But you are correct there is an edit war that I did not iniate and have left to the usual unproductive editors who troll wiki to pursue and promote their ideologies. I hope I have offended any who think wikipedia is a place to promote their agendas which is to many to count. Have a good day and be more diligent before throwing around accusations. 208.54.40.144 (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my warning. Please see WP:EW and WP:BRD.- MrX 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ditto See above

Speedy deletion declined: Suelong Sae Ma

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Suelong Sae Ma, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Appears to play for a professional club in a significant league, which is definitely enough for A7. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I also missed that he won several cups.- MrX 13:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello Sir, Thank you for your help! I am new to Wikipedia and accidentally posted something while I was drafting it. Have a great weekend! Franzthemogul89 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Franzthemogul89 and thanks for the barnstar. I thought it was probably just an accident. Happy editing!- MrX 00:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider

Mostly because I don't want to get sucked into the role of hall monitor, I don't want to start moderating ArbCom pages. But please reconsider whether your comment at "Hail and Farewell" will (to quote you) "contribute to making the atmosphere here less toxic, or building an encyclopedia, or moving this case to a meaningful conclusion", and if it doesn't, consider removing it. It's kind of the same thing that C did, just dialed back a few notches. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will retract it.- MrX 19:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on the Latin, sarcasm, condescension, wikilawyering, and passive aggressive tone. But even if someone makes themselves look like an ass my overriding concern is for them to get a fair hearing, and for justice to be seen to be done. Nevertheless I doubt that acting on your laudable suggestion re. process would make much if any difference in the long run (off-wiki communication likely takes place among the members). Where there is neither impartiality nor transparency there is precious little chance of justice. Just sayin'. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Collect's concerns deserve examination, but the way he's currently going about it will likely fail because it's argumentative, bordering on disruptive. He should craft a brief, factual, non-snark-laden appeal to Arbcom via their documented process. That (I would hope) would compel the committee to adjudicate it, rather than individual arbs opining.- MrX 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally. Writegeist (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom diff count

I see that you've collected a lot of diffs and exceeded the maximum. You ought to pare back a bit. For at least one of the "parties", I don't think the committee will take any action. – S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi S. Rich. I received permission here to extend my evidence to the full allowance normally given to parties.- MrX 23:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

mrx

	mrx
	hi, i am Mathante and i would like to edit the explainer video page. But i don't find any reliable source. what can i do? help Mathan te (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles require reliable sources and must be verifiable, so without sources, it doesn't seem as if there is anything that you can do. Sorry.- MrX 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen

My post to WP:NPOVN about Persecution of Muslims and Islamophobic incidents? Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but I will weigh in on the discussion a bit later.- MrX 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

About you unreviewing the page Panic 5 Bravo

Hello. I saw your notice of your Unreviewing of my A editors page and i was wondering why you did it. I couldn't see anything wrong with the page. Thanks! Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 23:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dudel250. The reason that I unreviewed it was so that other new page patrollers would have an opportunity to review it. I do this sometimes in borderline cases to get a second opinion, for example when notability is in question, or when a new article seems spammy. In this case, the editor who created the article keeps violating copyright by inserting copy-pasted content from IMDB.- MrX 00:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I'll Watch the page along With my other patroling Then. Thanks for doing that Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 00:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the transition for my page. I joined a few days ago so I did not know about sandbox thanks

Speedy deletion declined: The Crunch

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Crunch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having members who are or were members of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you.- MrX 22:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Be careful about the notability categories

You added a notability tag on JacOS, saying that it does possibly not meet the guidelines for companies. However, JacOS is an operating system according to the article! Therefore, I removed the improper tag. Feel free to re-add the tag, but leave no category because an OS does not fall under any of the categories. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! I meant to select 'products and services' from the Twinkle drop down for notability. WP:GNG would have been the better choice. Thanks for catching that!- MrX 00:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Good day. Piguy101 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iamaperson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Iamaperson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dolescum (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page to user space, thus creating a redirect, which I then CSD:R2ed. It looks like the original author then removed the CSD template and re-added the original content.- MrX 16:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template Removal from Photo Gallery: Chukwuedu Nwokolo

Removed template from [[1]] according to [[2]]: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images." Thank you for your good attention. Mgvlight (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of it, but image galleries in general are discouraged. Many of the images in the gallery at Chukwuedu Nwokolo lack encyclopedic value and some border on trivial. It sort of reminds me of Facebook. In any case, I'm not going to revert again, but I wouldn't be surprised if another editor replaces the cleanup tag, or remove the gallery entirely. Happy editing.- MrX 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Gracias! Thank you a mil times, MrX for your good lecture and help. You should also make an "exception"[[3]] on the other "intricate detail" template you put at the article beginning - according to: [[4]]. And I think the details are really "measured" and needed for article clarity. I thank you again for welcoming me to Wikipedia! God bless you, MrX! Mgvlight (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla

Next time you accuse me of disruption simply because I was responding to a RfC and giving an alternative proposal, you will be reported. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 'disrupt' was too strongly worded, so for that I apologize. However, please start a new section if you wish to request comments for a new proposal. Please don't co-opt an existing RfC. It's difficult to find consensus with a constantly moving target. For example, Austro-Hungary was not a nation when Tesla was born, so why include that as a new option? The RfC is not about geopolitical changes in Coratia/Austria/Hungary/Yugoslavia during Tesla's life; it's about the name of the place where he was born. Let's please stay focused.- MrX 22:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Tesla was such a great cientist that it is a shame that editors instead of expanding his discoveries and archivements dedicate such an effort in Balkanic possessivness over him. The same issue was discussed so many times in the past. Including the Croatian Military Frontier was a compromise already archived in past discussions (another editor also remembers). I am sorry if you took it personally that I expressed my opinion over your RfC as being useless. It was not against you, it had absolutelly nothing to do with you, but rather with the fact that each time some new editor comes questioning it, we discuss it all over again, and it is repetitive. Today we have this user trying to pretend the Military Frontier never existed or that it is unworth mention. Tomorow we´ll have possibly some Serbian editor bringing some text how Tesla says he is Serb and proposing because of it ignoring Croatia, and so on...

I accept your apologies, and I also apologise for my reaction. My intention was just to reach consensus in one centralised discussion, your RfC. I think it is not unusual to have alternative proposals all in one thread. The issue is the same, all regarding Tesla´s birthplace. Just one question, why you say A-H was not a nation when Tesla was born? FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that these nationalistic discussions are bad. The reason I created the RfC was so that the discussion would reach some conclusion that might have a binding effect. I know this has occurred in the past, but it seemed appropriate to probe consensus again, given some of the recent discussions. My point about Austro-Hungary (Austria-Hungary) is simply that it was the successor state of the Austrian Empire and did not exist until 1867, eleven years after Tesla's birth.- MrX 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, it was Austrian Empire... I assumed automatically it was A-H already, how embarassing, my fault.

Regarding the discussion, you are right, lets see what will happend. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm NQ. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kavanavallil, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.  NQ  talk 04:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Miss Multiverse page deleted

Greetings MrX,

I have a frustrating issue here... I have created the page Miss Multiverse, it was deleted once before about a year ago, i don´t understand why if it has all the right references, no use of promotion, just referenced facts, there are even winners of miss universe that have participated in Miss Multiverse whom have profiles on wikipedia... and its still deleted as if this beauty pageant does not exist.

I would like to know why this pageant DOES NOT deserve a page just like the numerous other pageants that are on wikipedia....

I will appreciate your help enormously, if you would kindly take a look and figure out a solution.

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, just to let you know, I have removed the G4 speedy deletion template from the Miss Multiverse page. The page was deleted a year ago due to spam and a lack of sources to evidence notability. Multiple users have contested the speedy deletion on the talk page, and a few more sources have been provided. In this case, I think re-nominating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion would be a better alternative to speedy deletion. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC), revised 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with that.- MrX 17:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows). Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Alex-Andria Tel Aviv

Hello, I've seen this article and the same images in the previously deleted article a time ago. They all were deleted, I think the user must be SP of some one. I don't remember but I'm sure same user creating different accounts is trying to get his subject on WP anyhow. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right. Thanks for letting me know.- MrX 14:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Onion

Turns out, the "War of Currents" is indeed mentioned in our article article.

From today's Onion AVClub:

WikiWormhole: A look at erratic, influential inventor Nikola Tesla

Aspects the piece found notable:

• Tesla's work was both "outlandish" and "potentially transformative" and presaged our wireless era
• Westinghouse won the War of Currents using Tesla’s AC technology
• Marconi’s radio was developed using a number of Tesla patents
• Tesla forfeited his royalties in order to save Westinghouse from financial ruin
• Tesla/Edison conflict: employee turned adversary, rivalry may have cost both the Nobel Prize
• Wardenclyffe Tower
• Later life eccentricity, specifically attempt to sell "death ray" to Allies

I Maybe we should get this guy to write the lead.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. As usual, I come for the article and stay for the comments.- MrX 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I had an ah ha moment just now. I edit sites on guitar effects and every once in a while you get a dude arguing for the inclusion an obscure boutique effect no one actually uses. You delete the reference but year after year they keep coming back. It's called product placement.

Most diehard Edison avengers would think better of continually pushing an obscure website. I'll just leave it at that.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I truly believe that the editor that I think you're alluding to is editing in good faith and without a hidden agenda. I also believe that if you look through the archives, you will see that their involvement with the article has been a net positive. I respect that you may disagree with that, but at least now you know what I think. Peace.- MrX 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. It may seem like they're having a positive effect if they're mediating the Balkan conflict. But that's the least of the article's problems. I hate to be right about these things, so I'm gonna try to stay away.-Atlantictire (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Phoenix Towers (China)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Phoenix Towers (China), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ȸ (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Emily Munro

I retagged this for CSD under A7, just FYI. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eccentric pop records

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eccentric pop records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having notable bands on the label is an assertion of importance or sgnificance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Have a nice day!- MrX 16:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You too, and thank you for patrolling new articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

FOBM Reverts Again

Reverts back to his preferred version of the article, nevermind talkpage discussion.

There is not a single edit of mine that has been preserved in this article because of this. Not one. It has been going on for over a week. And no, I won't edit war with him.

It's not fair. Every edit I've proposed I've provided reliable sources for. FOBM filibusters with with dubious sources, sources that don't actually say what he says they say, and noise.

FOBM owns the Tesla article. You're the only one he allows to edit it.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There's not that much difference between your version and his, so I don't really understand why this can't me resolved with discussion. He mentioned "many inaccuracies", so that would be a good place to start a discussion. Failing that, there is WP:DR/N, WP:RS/N and RfC. I don't have time now to dig deeply into sources to help to sort this out, and I'm not sure when I will. I also don't like participating in discussions that seem more like hair pulling contests than collegial debates.- MrX 21:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the complete lack of consideration and disregard for talkpage discussion and willingness to only collaborate with the admin. It's extremely passive aggressive and petty to revert or re-write everything, just so the version is your version. He does that with EVERYTHING I contribute. The ONLY reason it doesn't seem so bad is because I'm unwilling to edit war with him. I either complain to you or let him have his way. These are my options: Edit War or Give UP. He's very good at this.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Nikola Tesla". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for un-reviewing!

Hi Mr.X. I clicked the "reviewed" button by accident and then couldn't figure out how to undo it. Thanks for fixing my error. Can you point me to documentation for that feature? I think it's new. Terrek (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Here is the link: WP:Curation toolbar. This explains a little about patrolling new pages: WP:NPP.- MrX 13:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Floor area of Pheonix Towers

Hi Mr.X, Actually i'am not sure, about it but check here..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa
Here for Burj Khalifa, floor area described is about 75 Acres

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Tower
For Kingdom towers the floor area specified is about 120 Acres

Also i read in a news paper about Pheonix tower having floor area of around 120 Acres, so i just changed it !!
So please double check if possible..

Frozenprakash (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Information like that needs to be sourced to a reliable source. The source that you added makes no mention of floor area.- MrX 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Thank you for your comments at [5]. I probably won't make more comments at the DRN and left out quite a bit since it was about conduct, not content. I also can't agree that Atlantictire is editing in good faith, at least from my POV. There is one event in the editors recent edit history that would probably get the editor another block if not a ban. But its ANI stuff, not DRN. Thanks again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By "another block" I believe Fountains of Bryn Mawr is referring to the time I told an admin to "eat my fuck" for chastising editors for petty violations of WP:CIVIL, when these editors were trying to get an Anti-Semitic article that had been plagiarized from a hate site deleted. It's a very well known incident around here, and not something that I shy away from talking about. I'll thank FOBM to know that I do have principles, and I do know right from wrong, and I am very willing to notice when someone is promoting horrendous content under the cloak of WP:CIVIL. That's not what's happening here. There are gradations of passive-aggressiveness that are destructive to Wikipedia.

The DNR guys seem to be doing a good job steering the discussion away from conduct and back to content. I hope FOBM does decide to stick around and participate.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

If you want me to take your edit warring warning seriously, then I expect that you will be even-handed in your approach to the argument I am currently engaged with user:Ubikwit. As such, will you also put an edit warring warning on that user's talkpage as well? Limestoneforest (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I will if he reverts again. Please discuss your bold edit on the article talk page and try to gain consensus.- MrX 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it vandalism or edit war?

Greetings, Mr. X! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for several months, but I now am peripherally involved in a dispute which I hope you can help resolve.

It concerns the description of the work of an organization called OBON 2015, whose mission is to return Japanese good luck flags from WW2 to the families of the slain soldiers. I am familiar with OBON 2015 and recently became aware that the paragraph describing their work in the Good Luck Flag article was altered to state that the brereaved families did not want the flags returned because they would be considered "unclean" and therefore would force the families to perform a ritual cleansing of their homes. No sources for this are cited. However, the original text does cite sources showing that families who have had flags returned to them have been grateful and have experienced closure after decades of grieving. The editor who made the alteration putting OBON 2015's work in a negative light has simply removed those citations, along with the original text.

A very inexperienced editor supporting OBON 2015 has been attempting to revert to the original text, and being unaware of the rules against multiple reverts has now become involved in a long edit war with the editor who made the negative alteration. I have been asked for advice, and since I'm not very experienced myself, I thought it best to turn to you. Should the OBON 2015 supporter open a discussion on the Talk page for Good Luck Flag? Or is it clear, given that legitimate citations are being removed by the other editor, that this is a case of vandalism?

Any advice you can provide will be much appreciated! --Ailemadrah (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ailemadrah. I don't see vandalism, but I do see an edit war. It looks like 114.31.218.104 is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content that supports their point of view. Koshihikari should not accuse the IP of vandalism though. Vandalism implies intent to harm the encyclopedia, which I don' t believe to be the case here. Both editors should be warned about edit waring an invited to the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for their preferred version. I will report it to [[WP:RPP] ] so that the page can be temporarily edit protected, which will hopefully inspire discussion.- MrX 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mr. X! I do have one unanswered question, which is: isn't it against Wikipedia policy to replace sourced content with unsourced content?

Ailemadrah (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. The policy that would apply would be WP:V, so no, it's not necessarily against policy to remove sourced content, but it is definitely permissible to remove content that can not be verified in reliable sources. An editor who repeatedly removes sourced content and replaces it with unsourced content against the objections of other editors is edit warring, which is a blockable offense. Editors who repeatedly insert unverifiable content (such as original research) may be sanctioned for disruption.- MrX 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 114.31.218.104 has again replaced the sourced content written by Koshihikari with the same unsourced content. And this happened after Koshihikari opened a discussion on the talk page for the article. What is the next step? Oh, by the way, I checked 114.31.218.104's user talk page and found a warning. Can one assume that he/she is aware of the warning? Thanks again for any and all assistance! Ailemadrah (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would assume that the IP is aware of the warning, but the only way to know for sure is to see if they respond to it or delete it. You may also want to leave a message on their talk page inviting them to the article talk page using the Talkback function.

The next step would be for discussion leading to a consensus on the article talk page, while the article is locked. If you and Koshihikari agree on the content, and the IP doesn't join the discussion, then that will be the established consensus. At that point, you can request that the page be unprotected, or wait until the protection expires 10 days from now, and introduce the consensus content. If the IP then reverts the article, they are not only edit warring, but also editing tendentiously, and should be reported to WP:EW/N.- MrX 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mr. X! I've done both things you recommended: inviting the IP into the discussion using Talkback and adding my own comment to the talk page, agreeing with Koshihikari's content. So I guess we all have to wait now to see if the IP responds, correct? Ailemadrah (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right. Since the IP has consistently taken no longer than ½ day to revert, and usually reverts within a few hours, I would expect them to participate in the discussion in a similar time frame, assuming that they are editing in good faith and are here to improve the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours and the IP has not responded. Would it be appropriate to now ask that the page be unprotected? I do believe that the IP is not editing in good faith, and I would not be at all surprised if his/her response is to revert again, at which point we would have proof of a tendentious edit. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You can try, but you might find admins reluctant to unprotect it so soon. You can ask the admin who protected it (Ged UK), or you can post a request at WP:RPP.- MrX 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. X. I'm sorry to bother you again about this issue, but the IP has again reverted, which according to your definition above, constitutes tendentious editing. This happened yesterday, after a week of edit protection on the Good Luck Flag page and after Koshihikari replaced the IP's unsourced content with the consensus sourced content. I sent the following message to Ged UK, who put the edit protection on the article:

Hello again, Ged UK. The IP has reverted again, within hours of Koshihikari putting in the consensus sourced content. Mr. X told me that if this happened, it would be considered a tendentious edit that should be reported to WP:EW/N. Should Koshihikari or I make this report, or is it something that is handled by an admin like yourself? Ailemadrah (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not heard back from Ged UK, and it pains me to see the unsourced content damaging the article again. Both Koshihikari and I are eager to see the consensus content reinstated and to have the IP prevented from further reverting. Should one of us make the report to WP:EW/N, or would it be better to wait for Ged UK's response? Also, how long does it usually take for a determination to be made that an editor should be blocked from making further edits? I noticed on the IP's contributions page that his/her first edit was to add the words "dishonest fraud" to a BLP, which was tagged as possible vandalism and removed - this appears to show a pattern of biased editing. Many thanks, and apologies again for taking up your time with this! Ailemadrah (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was unlocked yesterday. I'm going to report the IP to WP:EW/N.- MrX 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much! Ailemadrah (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that the IP is now blocked from editing. Is it therefore permissible to reinstate the consensus content? Ailemadrah (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone has objected on the article talk page, it's appropriate to reinstate the content. In all liklihood, the IP will simply revert it again when their block expires, so you will probably have to report it to WP:EW/N at that time.- MrX 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus content is now reinstated, with no objections. I understand that we may have more work to do to get the IP to stop reverting, but it's a relief - if only a temporary one - to see the correct content displayed. Thank you again for all your help, which has been absolutely invaluable! Ailemadrah (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Mr. X, thank you so much for your ongoing help in keeping unsourced POV content out of Good Luck Flag! I just wanted you to know how much your wisdom, quick responses, and persistence are appreciated. Ailemadrah (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Ailemadrah: I'm honored by your kind words.- MrX 16:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:WudaTime

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:WudaTime, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it did apply when I added the tag. Apparently the article was recreated. - MrX 18:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Roland Aira

• I don't know which citing sources are defined as "Reliable". Roland, YouTube-video's, reading dutch magazines, such as "Interface" and my own visits to a (Dutch) music-store seemed not to be enough.
• Also with immediately warnings about "Speedy deletion" and "Contest the nomination", then I don't feel any motivation about typing about the TR-8 and TB-3, which machines I do own.
• Then I am afraid that photo's, which I made myself, are not welcome here too.
• I realize your fight agains spam, commercial-usings and noncense is a continueing process, but I already had (and lost) such deleting wars on the dutch wikipedia in 2008 and I don't feel to have an other struggle anymore.

Egeltjes (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Egeltjes. Please don't be discouraged. It takes some time to learn how Wikipedia works, and what is acceptable content, especially for new articles. Please start by reading the tutorials linked in the welcome message at the top of your user talk page. Article content needs to be based on reliable sources. You can read about that here: WP:RS. WP:CITE will help you learn about how to cite your sources with footnotes.

If you follow the instructions about creating your FIRST article, you will be less likely to see your articles nominated for deletion. Photos are welcome, and do not require references. You can read about uploading images here.

Of course we want to keep spam and vandalism out, but the community also wants an encyclopedia of notable information, which means that other publications wrote about the subjects first. Please take the time to learn about Wikipedia. You may want to try to improve some other articles and participate in talk page discussions before trying to create any more new articles. It's a great way to learn!- MrX 13:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Too late. My wiki motivation has gone. I got "hit" twice now. I learned my lesson and draw my conclusion. No more text from me here anymore. And please, delete my text in Roland's VT-3 and System 1, just as has been done with Roland's Aira. Egeltjes (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Informisani's talk page.
Message added 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Kim Revell

Just a quickie, I thought a claim of being in a national football team was good enough to clear A7. I've changed it to a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know.- MrX 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

John Foxx honorary doctorate

You asked for a source for the addition to John Foxx's entry that he is being given an honorary doctorate by Edge Hill University. Here is the source:

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/news/2014/06/edge-hill-university-reveals-honorary-degree-recipients-ahead-2014-graduations/

Please add the sentence back.

R Witts

Thanks for finding the source. I've added the content back in, with some copy editing.- MrX 02:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New vote, old business

Hey, I am writing to thank you for your recent edit to the AfD I started almost a month ago on The Christmas Doll. I've been finding that after the first week, it is generally hard to get anyone interested in a deletion discussion on either side, and it takes someone with an interest in finishing up old business to bother to check the older but still open discussions and weigh in on them so that they can finally be closed. You saw, I assume, that this one had been relisted three times with no new votes, and still was in need of at least one more opinion. I think that having yours now means that a closing admin can feel a consensus has been reached and the discussion can be wrapped up. I hate old business. Thank you for helping make it go away! Much appreciated, sir. KDS4444^Talk 03:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome KDS4444. I'm glad I could help.- MrX 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your help regarding Tesla discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask of you to help with procedural proceeding regarding Tesla's discussions. I wanted to wait for Director, as more experienced editor, however, a long time has passed and I think the discussion had finished. You also have been helpful regarding those discussions and posted several helpful comments on my talk page, so I decided to ask your help. Is it ok to make the edit, since there are no reasonable objections and the sources are quite clear, or should i give credit to unfounded objections and initialize WP:DR? Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already requested closure of the RfC here. The reason it hasn't been closed yet is because editors such as yourself keep commenting. Ideally, editors would make one succinct argument and move on, but unfortunately that hasn't occurred, so I don't know when the RfC will be resolved. You can not make the edit about Tesla's birthplace/homeland until and unless the RfC is closed with a conclusion that there is consensus to do so. Consensus rules over everything here, other than a few Wikimedia Foundation policies.

The RfC is a form of dispute resolution. If you mean Dispute resolution noticeboard, that would not be appropriate because there are too many users who have already participated in the RfC, and so far, consensus clearly does not support the Tesla birthplace/homeland change. Also, the dispute resolution noticeboard is not compulsory, nor is it binding.- MrX 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that consensus will be reached. I will briefly explain the situation from my point of view. I presented numerous sources in support of my claim. Some other people have also presented some sources which also support my suggestion. There had been no sources presented to dispute my suggestion. We have a bunch of unfounded objections, and if we dismiss them, there is not a single valid objection. For me, the conclusion of the RfC has been reached. What do you suggest for the next step towards resolving this issue? Asdisis (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken. First, there seems to be a strong consensus to omit your proposed edit. Second, your assertion that "There had been no sources presented to dispute my suggestion." is false. I plainly presented numerous primary and secondary sources that state that Tesla was born in Serbia, Austria, Montenegro, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austrian Croatia, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Croatia. The next step toward resolving the issue is to wait for the RfC to be closed.- MrX 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. There had been no valid objection. I do not think that we can regard unfounded objections as a consensus. Mind the fact that those objections directly contradict reliable sources, and are not supported by any source. I refined your sources and you had not objected. Sources that mention any other country than Austrian Empire (Austro-Hungary) had been disregarded. I also made a summary of the sources listed in the article which are referenced and used to write the article. Those sources support my suggestion. After the RfC is closed with the "consensus" that disregards all of the presented source, what would be the next step towards resolving this dispute? Asdisis (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tesla dispute

I'm sorry for posting again. I see that you closed the previous plea for help. You message is somewhat unclear. I do not understand why you closed my previous plea.I know we have a disagreement, however that does not mean you can't help me with the process. You help would be much appreciated. If you are not willing to help me, just state that clearly and I will find someone who is. I do not know what should closing my previous plea mean. Maybe its my fault since we started to discuss about content dispute. If that is the case, I apologize. I just answered your comments and we went the wrong way. I just wanted a help with the process from a more experienced editor. You mentioned the review at ANI. Could you further explain that process or give some reference. As I have understood we should do according to WP:DR and choose one of suggested processes. Could you explain what would be the best solution. Should I, or can I initialize formal mediation? Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not clear. You have to wait until the RfC is closed, then if you disagree with the result, you can post a request for review at WP:AN (or WP:AN/I) asking that the community review the closure (example). Essentially, this creates an RfC about the RfC, and the wider community will determine the appropriate outcome through consensus. Once that's done, there is no higher venue of appeal.- MrX 12:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And who is to determine the result of the RfC? I wrote my conclusion. One more question. Should we use formal mediation as suggested here WP:DR. Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin or experienced editor can close the RfC. No, you should not use formal mediation. The RfC will determine consensus and settle the content dispute.- MrX 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, MrX, for your ping. Also, thank you very much for your excellent sourcing in the various boxes. They illustrated to me that "getting your way" when writing on any topic can be achieved when you are the lead author of the book or article. Thus we have the many variations of birthplace description. But WP does not have a lead author or editor-in-chief, so no one gets their way; which leads me to one more comment: @Asdisis: you should look at WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures before going to the ANI. This says you should contact me about the closure. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure Srich32977, and thanks for closing the RfC.- MrX 18:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, I am new user of Wikipedia and English is my second language so forgive me my questions and possible mistakes. Recently I transfered the article about Smart Specialisation and I wrote in the footnotes that it came from other website (I am one of its admins). Then I get message from you that a tag has been placed on Smart Specialisation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Now I see that it has already been deleted. I am confused because this article on external website has creative commons logo. Apart from that, I sent an e-mail (permissions-en@wikimedia.org)with permission from the author to use his article and left OTRS pending on the article talk page (as it is written in the instruction). So can you explain me why this article has been deleted? What did I do wrong? I will be very grateful for the answer. - Agnieszka Dudka

Although the content that you copied from http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/encyclopaedia/what-s3-means-for-european-regions-different-forms-of-smart-specialisation.html is licensed under creative commons, it not freely licensed for commercial use, making it incompatible with Wikipedia. Wikipedia content must be freely licensed, including commercial use. I did not see an OTRS pending message on the talk page when I nominated the article for deletion. An admin (Secret deleted the article, and presumably agreed with my reasoning. If you are donating previously published content, you should get permission through OTRS before adding the content to Wikipedia.- MrX 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the answer. So if I put proper Creative Commons licence under the article on external website and then again transfer the article on wikipedia, everything will be fine? - Agnieszka Dudka

Yes, if you put a compatible license notice on your webpage, then the content can be added to Wikipedia. I recommend also including a statement in the edit summary, when you create the article. Something like: "Creating article using CC-BY-SA and GFDL freely licensed content" so that page reviewers know that the content is not a WP:COPYVIO.- MrX 11:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Agnieszka Dudka

Hello, I again received automated message from CorenSearchBot about copyrights. Should I worry about this? Under the article on the external website there is proper Creative Commons logo and I left in edit summary information you suggested. Should I do something more? - Agnieszka Dudka

It looks like someone has already taken care of it, so everything is good.- MrX 01:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Tesla birthplace revision

I thought that the RfC only established that Croatia should not explicitly be mentioned. I still think that the present construct has double meanings, that's why I started the discussion so I invite you to join. Asdisis (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm

The RfC has clearly determined that we are keeping the current wording. You really should move on and let this go. SPA users who edit tendentiously, or who disruptively try to make points as you have done here usually end up blocked or banned. I don't want to see this happen to you, so please find some other way to contribute to this project other than wasting our time with your obsession with Tesla's nationality. Thank you.- MrX 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have only good intentions. I recently joined Wikipedia and its normal that I start with one "project". I do not think that I'm obsessed with Tesla's nationality, I only participated in the discussions regarding his birthplace. The edits I have done follow the decisions of the RfC and ANI. I suggest we continue of the discussion page. I think that there will be a general consensus for suggested edit. I also noted someone's warning that I was bludgeoning so I will correct that. Asdisis (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for the warnings, I will study them in detail. You mentioned SPA. I would like to note that, although I had strong point of view, I accepted the decisions of ANI. I do not think that my acts have a common purpose. For instance the purpose was to establish Tesla's birthplace, and that was done. I respect the ANI although I had a different point of view. However, the decision of ANI leads to some other edits I tried to implement, for instance removing the reference to "Serbs of Croatia", and starting the discussion there referencing the decision of ANI. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there!

I have noticed you participate in several AfD's and I think you would be a great help for this project. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll join and see if I can help a little.- MrX 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes to WP:QC

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jelly Marketing

I don't know exactly what you did about the review of this article. It looked fine when I reviewed it. I've nominated the article for AFD to see if it's worthy of inclusion, though. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)