User talk:MrX

MrX

MrX	talk	articles	photos

POV tag on 2017–18 Iranian protests: Difference between revisions

Hi, can you please clarify on the talk page the reason of adding tag on the article. Then we can discuss to solve the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian:. I didn't add it. All I did was change it from a page template to a section template. MehrdadFR added it.- MrX 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do not ever remove my comments

Ever.--MONGO 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you post personal attacks, I will remove them and next time, I will open an AE case to examine why you have continued the same misconduct that you were admonished for in an Arbcom case. Now you have a nice day.- MrX 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I welcome a full blown arbcom case to look at all your editing history and how you misuse this website to promote a biased and nonneutral treatise on people, making massive BLP violations everyday you do so.--MONGO 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This heading is inconsistent with WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth George's books

Hi, I've just added a ref for both articles. Thank you for the note on my talk page. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Comte0.- MrX 23:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Essential Beatles

Why was this article removed and redirected? I could not find anything wrong I did with the article. Citations were in order and there was not any warning that it would be removed. Paulisdead (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because of an AfD discussion that determined it is not independently notable. I believe I linked it in my edit summary. Also, see the article revision history.- MrX 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read the original Article for deletion again. At that time, I believe there were less international releases (of The Beatles) on Wikipedia. Since then (2012), articles like Los Beatles (album), Greatest Hits Volume 1 (Beatles album), Very Together and Por Siempre Beatles have been added. I over hauled my original article and added the required citation to so that the compilation album The Essential Beatles was a significant enough release to warrant an article (it was in Australia's Top 10 and was in print for over a decade!). In short - the original reason for the articles deletion is no longer valid and there is no good reason as to why it should still be taken down. Paulisdead (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MONGO. Best of luck to you and happy editing.- MrX 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

please stop

Please stop what looks like stalking and vandalizing. Tomdo08 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about Tomdo08?- MrX 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Time on the talk page

Hey MrX — I don't object to your closing discussions once consensus is clear (in fact I think it's a useful thing on talk pages generally). However, I think it'd be helpful to give a little more time before closing them. For instance in your last closure at the Russia election interference page, I was hoping to make a comment and hadn't gotten around to it yet. All I was going to say, there, is that 1) most of Putin's latest statement doesn't add that much, unless we're going to add more background to election interference generally (e.g. in the background). 2) Since Putin is named 112 times in the article, it certainly is the case that his view deserves merit (and his words have also been widely reported). Best, -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if you strongly support adding Putin's unfiltered comments to the article, it's still not going to change the outcome of no consensus to add the material (or there is consensus to omit it). The OP is grasping at straws to the point of disruption, as he has done several times before. I do not see the point of keeping the discussion open when it is plainly trending away from support for the OPs proposed edit.- MrX 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not that the final decision would change, it's that the conversation might be somewhat different. It's that much to ask for a week, or even 3 days, before closing discussion (I think you waited 17 hours in this case). -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very ill-advised, but I really don't feel like debating it all day.- MrX 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind you closing discussion — I'd even thank you for taking the time to do it — but please just give other editors time to read the posts. I also like to think about what people are writing for a few days before making up my mind sometimes. -Darouet (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you MrX, I just saw your removal of the close, and really appreciate it. I'll try to be sure to comment in the next few days, and as I mentioned above, I don't mind if you close after some reasonable time has passed. Just FYI — and you've been around quite some time so I know you'll have your own thoughts on this — I don't think you actually need to respond to every comment on these talk entries, especially if it seems they'll peter out on their own. -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone else must have re-opened the discussion because I didn't. I would almost never oppose reversing a close of mine on something I'm involved with.- MrX 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm OK. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

When an editor who has a long record of incompetent, nothere, and other disruptive behavior repeatedly raises a POV that clearly contradicts the weight of RS and clearly contravenes recent consensus, there is no value to the marginal comment. Quite the opposite -- the principle should be WP:DENY and the only effect of further comments is to encourage even more distractions and diversions of editor resources. In my personal opinion, it's clear that this situation needed to be closed. Note that MrX did not hat it or archive it, but rather that he evaluated the comments and summarized them in an appropriate close. What possible reason would there be to prolong such an event? SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Racial views of Donald Trump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Hill and Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions

Dear Mr. X, Thank you for informing me about the sanctions on post-1932 American politics. However, I would like to know what type of sanctions they are. What are the consequences for breaking them, whether it be accidental or deliberate? Thenabster126 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thenabster126: Generally, if you adhere to Wikipedia's purpose and make a good faith effort to respect policies, you should be OK. There are some articles like the one you edited that have editing restrictions (thus the notice at the top of the page when you make an edit). It is very important not to violate the edit restrictions (1 revert per 24 hours and do not restore material previously challenged and removed by reversion, without first obtaining consensus). You had inserted the word "alleged" which was previously challenged and is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Sanctions for violating editing restrictions (or behavioral norms) can range from topic bans to blocks. If you accidentally violate a restrictions, almost all editors will give you a chance to self-revert before reporting you, although technically that's not required. Best practice is to be aware of previous edits to an article and spend plenty of time reading and participating in discussions on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 02:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Question...

How did you know this was suspect? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: The presence of three or more of the following : Subject matter (Trump), over the top commentary, excessive cites, Reductio ad Hitlerum, and IP geolocates to Brooklyn (or sometimes one of the other boroughs).- MrX 🖋 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Policy

Thanks for telling me about that I did not know that the truth can be restricted due to some ones belief about the subject. I due believe that certain subjects should be restricted due to some ones political opinion but in this case I do not believe it was a matter of opinion rather a matter of fact. Colored (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Colored: The alert was a general heads up about being careful when editing a controversial subject. Your edit was probably reverted because it interrupted the flow in the lead, has grammar and spelling errors, and it misrepresents the source with original research. It has nothing to do with one's political leanings. - MrX 🖋 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Dear Mr x I would like to first start out by say that I did a sloppy job on the page I edited and I am sorry for that. I was just trying to put the fact on that article. But you insulting me with your harsh words that have no truth in them rather then for your own political opinion and gain is hurtful and mean. I would also advicer you to treat others as you treat your self! Best wishes Colored🖊 Colored (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't discuss my political opinion and I won't discuss yours. Let's just follow the rules and everything will be great.- MrX 🖋 04:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I always Try to my best attention to try to follow the rules but sometimes i slip and I am sorry for that. But just remember to be nicer to your fellow Wikipedians because they are people too. Best Wishes Colored🖊👍 Colored (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous (book)

You have actually reverted to my preferred version. However, I would like some of the copy-editors views to seep through in the lead. It's why most people would read the page. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you are OK with "According to leaked emails obtained by BuzzFeed, the book is largely ghost-written."? I ask because you have removed it in your recent edit. The other sentence that you wrote did not a have a source citation, so I thought it should be removed..- MrX 🖋 14:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes MRX. Its a difficult balancing act, although leads don't need cites if its covered below. The "book [was] largely ghost-written" is hardly contentious in fairness; the publishers have near described him as a moron. And I have tied to disentangle the claim from Buzzfeed, if you follow the edit history. Ceoil (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver

Please do not use OneClickArchiver on pages that are archived by a bot, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. They will be archived in good time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64 Cluebot III seems down - hasn't edited for two days.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Short answer, no unless you can give some sort of reason that makes sense. I'm not aware of any policy that prevents items from being archived manually and having items are closed on ANRFC just makes it more difficult to locate items that still need to be closed. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

When a bot goes down, the thing to do is to ensure that the botop is aware of the problem. OneClickArchiver does not use the same archiving method that ClueBot III does - compare the last thread here with the three above it. Items in WP:ANRFC that still need to be closed may be identified by the "Initiated" text being in green - those with a longer backlog are in red, those which may have been requested prematurely are in blue, closed requests are in black. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, all it does is convert  Done to {{done}} (well, afaik), but well yes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK Redrose64, I understand what the concern is. Thank you for explaining it.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver and Lowercase sigmabot III have been co-existing at Talk:Donald Trump at least since this discussion, with no problems that I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On the ANRFC page it's cluebot III (different, fancier bot) which archives discussions with  Done or a variant and converts them to {{done}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Understand. I was responding to the first part of the OP's first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Awarded for your tireless and thankless efforts dealing with problematic and combative behavior constructively as a non-admin. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Toddst1. That's very kind of you.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

DS at Dossier

Hi. The CIVILITY sanction was added after the consensus violation. The Consensus sanction was in place when he violated it. If I'm reading your note to Floq correctly, you might want to reconsider? SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Isn't the issue that there was no edit notice in place, thus TTAAC claims that restoring challenged material was not prohibited? It's moot anyway, because he wasn't sanctioned for violating an editing restriction; he was sanctioned for "repeated refusal to gain consensus before making controversial edits in the topic area." It is well within an admin's authority to place such a sanction on an editor, so the appeal is completely without merit.- MrX 🖋 21:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit notice was in place. Then Coffee substituted a new more restrictive one that added the Civility Requirement. But the old one, in place, had the Consensus Required.

See this diff [1] Click on each of the templates. Also click on the talk page history from the time he made the reinsertion w/o consensus. See? SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but those are not edit notices. I believe Arbcom just passed an amendment requiring than an edit notice be in place before an editing restriction can be enforced.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to: [2] - MrX 🖋 21:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I get sick an tired .............

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.

---

of admins who don't have a clue about Dutch football. Why we need the same discussion every few months? Read what you point at first yourself. Speedy deletion is out of order anyway. --Sb008 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"I strive to work collaboratively with the other members of the Wikipedia community." You better remove this line from your user page. How you work with others if you propose deletion right away without any discussion? The summon of being unconstructive.--Sb008 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sb008. I understand that you are upset because your stub articles about amateur football clubs were deleted. Wikipedia has minimum standards for new articles. Unfortunately, these clubs do not appear to meet those standards so they were deleted. There was a warning at the top of the edit window when you created these articles. I don't think discussion prior to deletion would have resulted in a different outcome. - MrX 🖋 18:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You wanna bet Mr. Vandal? --Sb008 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (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.

You made clear you didn't want to discuss from the start.

Part of the old discussions [[3]].

There is more, have to find it first, but suggest you initiate undelete.--Sb008 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Extra reading material [[4]] --Sb008 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case 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/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user - please check your details

Hello, I have been doing a cleanup of the ‘Adopter’ information page for the Adopt-a-user Project, located here. During my cleanup, I've removed several long-inactive and retired users, leaving just the most recently active ones, whether they're currently available (14 users) or not currently available (24 users).

In order to provide potential adoptees with an easy location to find people, the Adopter's page needs to be up-to-date with the latest availability information. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, even in the future, please remove yourself from the list, and delete any {{adopting}} templates from your user pages.
• If you are still interested, but not currently available, please check the list to see if your details needs to be updated - especially with regards availability. (A dummy edit would show me you’ve checked and are OK with what’s currently there.)
• Feel free to add a line at the bottom of your entry to show how many adoptees you’ve previously helped. I’m sure that would be of interest to newcomers, especially when you do return.
• I have also cleaned out nearly 100 inactive editors still flagged as seeking adoption. That leaves just 18 people currently interested in being adopted.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Finally, as an editor with previous experience of adoption (unlike myself!), you might wish to respond to the (admittedly long) comments I've made here about how I think the project could be improved and got working again. I've also 'been bold' and tweaked the project pages a wee bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo, and the path from Putin to Americans

I noticed this comment of yours:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823393719

The same pathway of unreliable sources which channel misinformation directly from Putin/FSB to Trump and his sycophants is described here. This is a concise explanation of how the Trump/Russia interference in the election worked:

In the report, Steele spoke of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin… an intelligence exchange had been running between them for at least 8 years."

Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.

"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of "microtargeting". Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back."

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

"If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don't vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that's voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot."[5]

Enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting connections... BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how much of an impact, if any, Russian bots has on #ReleasetheMemo, but the discussion on Nunes memo reminds me of the discussions on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and that's not a good thing.- MrX 🖋 02:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in 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/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nunes Memo

Did you put those refs in the wrong place[6]? Otherwise they are not supporting the part I added in text attribution to... PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The issue was not that it was renewed 3 times, that is everywhere and uncontroversial. It is the implication that there is guilt associated with it, which is why I put that part only in Jim's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, however that's how FISA warrants work anyway, so I'm at a loss why you think an uncontroversial statement of fact requires attribution. I also dispute that someone pointing out something is the same as someone claiming that something is true. Let's discuss it on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 23:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

We would like to remind you that the Joefromrandb and others case, in which you are listed as party, is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello MrX, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Basement Window

Yeah, like someone searching wikipedia for Basement Window is really looking for an obscure album of an obscure band. FFS. ElectricRay (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your link to XTools...

Just curious...do you know if any of our coders can create a POV gage to go with an article's edit revision history? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't I wish.- MrX 🖋 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I always thought that little icon in your signature was a warning that your POV is "off the hook"? SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good one SPECIFICO! - MrX 🖋 00:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You were close, SPECIFICO...but not close enough. Happy to know you had a good laugh! Laughter is the best medicine for what ailes you, but it's a long way off from my POV. My receiver is actually off-the-hook to POV warriors who can't distinguish the difference between fact and opinion or perhaps they can but ignore it - bolt down those aluminum hats. There's nothing there, there - but it appears there will be a major announcement in coming weeks. Who knows why people do the things they do? I'm way too busy helping to build a quality encyclopedia to be distracted by such nonsense or political rhetoric and rumors. Just the thought of WP competing along the same lines as the National Enquirer scares the beejeebees out of me. It's no secret that I don't trust the motives of many in MSM, including their sensationalized "breaking news" headlines, opinion pieces and "trendy" gossip that so many unsuspecting readers latch onto. I know the media game all too well having spent a career "participanting" in it before it became 100% sensationalized. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't drink today's Koolaid, I only read the most trustworthy MSM when required. I have chosen instead to write about verifiable facts that are supported by due process of law, not rumors originating from unknown sources which is what we've been seeing lately because so many editors don't understand NPOV or when to use inline text attribution. I would much rather share good times with friends, and buy everyone a round of beer. Happy editing!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I quit drinking... Drmies (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Drmies! Really? You have to drink something...water, milk, cola...??? Just name your pleasure. Next Wikimania meet-up (in the US), I've got you covered. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Tea, right now. I've had enough coffee to fill up the IJsselmeer. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh I followed the link here and closed that RfC--that really wasn't going anywhere. Lesson no. 1 for RfCs: write it up properly... Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks, I had assumed people would read the section before voting/closing which lead to my mistake on the wording it seems. Ah well, better luck next time! PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain your changes - Gulden_(digital_currency)

Whilst I and everyone else, appreciates the work of volunteer editors on Wiki, I am not happy with some of your work on this page.

You've made multiple changes, but this post relates specifically to your edit at 12:23 on the 10th February. I'll wait to see your response here, before making my own changes/updates.

In ==history==, the change description is "Removed unsourced and improperly sourced content, promotional material, and inline external links. Github is not a reliable source".

Firstly, you removed the entire section regarding 'Merchant Acceptance'. Merchant acceptance is a critical element of the ecosphere for *some* (not all) crypto currencies. As this section listed software that *enabled* merchant acceptance, I believe it is relevant. As the author of the original page, I have no links or a vested interest in any of the software listed. The information was added as it is a differentiator for Gulden.

Your first correction to the section "The Future" improves the readability. Thank you.

Your removal of detail, relating to the PoW2 does nothing to increase reader understanding of these changes and so, in my opinion, the deletion is not valid. This Wiki page shouldn't suffer because you do not consider GitHub a 'reliable source'. If you'd read the context, you'd see that GitHub was merely a convenient link to the PDF file - whatever your opinion of GitHub may be, it is a 'reliable source' as it provides a copy of a PDF file. Reliable as in, the PDF on GitHub is the exact same file/contents as the PDF on the Gulden Website. However, with hindsight, the link should actually be to the official Gulden website (https://www.guldengids.nl/documents/Gulden_PoW2.pdf) - and so I'm happy to update that link, when the rest of this section is restored (I'll obviously wait for your response before restoring the page).

Your change to the location of the 'References' section is, I assume, in line with formatting standards. Therefore, thank you for that.

Regards

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by EyePeaSea (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@EyePeaSea: I removed information that was promotional and unsourced or poorly-sourced. Entries under the Merchant acceptance section need be be referenced to reliable sources. That generally means newspapers, magazines, journals, books, and news web sites. A PDF file that is not published by a reliable source should not be cited as a source. https://en.guldenmap.com is not a reliable source. The comparison with Visa and MasterCard's network is original research. Sentences like "The Raison d'être of this currency is the widespread adoption of the Gulden as a means of payment for goods and services that is fast, secure, accessible and has very low transaction costs." are promotional. Self-published sources are usually not reliable, unless the material is written by a (third-party) published expert in the field. If you have specific questions or concerns, please start a discussion on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Salacious and unverified

You left a harsh chastisement on my talk page, but you are notably absent from the discussion I started here: Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Salacious_and_unverified Xerton (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it was warning, which was pretty mild considering that you flagrantly ignored the edit notice and the fact that this has been previously discussed multiple times on the article talk page. You haven't presented any new reasoning that has not already been rejected.- MrX 🖋 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, a) I am somewhat new to that page, b) the edit summary which reverted me seemed to focus on something else; it was not clear and c) these two words are direct from James Comey - he's an unimpeachable authority on the contents of the dossier. So yes, it was harsh Xerton (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't understand claim that First Measured Century is not notable or that notability is not visible in references. Many significant reviews in places like New York Times and Wall Street Journal are listed. Are they somehow not visible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehicks (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop including the image of the suspect

Please read the rational in: 2017 Laws Vegas shooting! If you want to use the image, create a separate article about the suspect and link to it. Thanks! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The photo should remain unless you can obtain consensus for removing it. Please respect WP:BRD.- MrX 🖋 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What's your rational for including it in the first place? No images of the victims are included. Show some respect dude! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean rationale, dude. Readers want to know a little about the murderer, including what he looks like.- MrX 🖋 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of racism against Donald Trump

On the Accusations of racism against Donald Trump article you mentioned only 29.9% of the article was criticism of racism. How did you arrive at that number? PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I divided the number of words in sentences that contain criticisms or condemnations by the total words in the article.- MrX 🖋 22:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I am sorry you had to read though that whole mess, while copy pasting a bunch of little parts. I was just curious if there was a certain method you had used. PackMecEng (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a bit of work, but it was worth it because I figure that facts are better than sweeping generalizations that turn out not to be true.22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If I get some free time this afternoon I might give it a shot myself, see which of us is fake news Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Keep in mind a fair amount of material has been removed since I did the analysis.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah between those two much has recently change. <sigh> Why can't everyone just play nice? PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX, good on ya for dealing with these Trump articles day in and day out. I lose would lose patients and thus this is one time, I'm very glad my current internet service is soooo bad. Best of luck. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Never Again MSD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never Again MSD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Again MSD until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Veggies (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The obvious

Just between you and me and the deep blue sea, you're being overly generous in the politics articles by so graciously responding to threads that are wasting a huge amount of editor time and attention. The WP:TE problem seems to get worse when there are no longer plausible sources to support denialist views. Even the Intercept and Bavarian Daily have now seen reality. I'm not sure what to do about it, but we're only going to lose more editors who don't have the stomach for incessant denial of consensus, supported by half-truth and misapplication or misstatement of policy. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I know. I constantly tell myself not to entangled in the craziness, but I guess it's just too hard to resist.- MrX 🖋 23:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there's an objective process problem however. Policy and sourcing start off with a 6-point handicap due to the POV editors. WP:TE should function to prevent them from wearing down and chasing away the serious editors, but enforcement requires a trip to AE or an Admin who can recognize what's happening. It becomes risky simply to ignore the disruptive threads which then... Well, "entangled" is the definition of trolling but mention that word and there'll be a stream of AGF how-dare-you nonsense. I do think the POV stuff is hanging its hat on increasingly flawed and tenuous arguments as the RS reporting uncovers things in more and more detail. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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 that 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.

Merely a formality: it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of removal of "falsely" on David Hogg (activist)

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.

---

Hi there - you reverted my edit on the David Hogg (activist) article for the removal of the word "falsely". As I referenced in my initial edit summary, I believe this is a weasel word, and also violates MOS:ACCUSED, since I would argue that, like most conspiracy theories, a conclusive yes/no answer is very difficult to obtain - hence why Wikipedia typically focuses on presenting the facts, as it does in that article. For example, see this section of the lunar landing article. While the section clearly presents the conspiracy as disputed with "empirical evidence", it does not include words that skew the neutrality of the article one way or the other. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Falsely" and "accused/alleged/purported" do not have the same meaning. The theory that Hogg is a crisis actor has been thoroughly debunked as indisputably false. Someone was even fired for it. Some conspiracy theories are plausible; this one is not. Do you disagree with any of this?- MrX 🖋 18:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If a conclusion can be reached that the conspiracy theory that makes up ~30% of the entire page is entirely false and plausible, I question its inclusion in the page in the first place. My opinion is that if a conspiracy theory/controversy is covered at all, it should be covered in a neutral way. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

One issue at time. Do you disagree that sources ayy that this conspiracy theory was debunked? Let's continue this discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can weigh in. I will copy it there now.- MrX 🖋 18:46, 27 February 2018 (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.

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: NRA lead

See MOS:BOLDAVOID. The example is relevant. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss it on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I require some clarification

Regarding the warning you left on my talk page accusing me of violating BLP. I don't understand how what you removed in special:diff/828309263 does that. Heavy is simply pointing out that the conspiracy theory about him attending Redondo Shores was DEBUNKED. You make it sound like I was saying the conspiracy theory was true.

You can also see this tweet cited in this source:

• Smith, Allan (21 Feb 2018). "The conspiracy theory around one of the Florida school-shooting survivors is getting even more insane". Business Insider. A Twitter user identified as "Laguna Beach Antifa" on Tuesday posted what they said was a photo of Hogg and his classmates in a yearbook, claiming it was from Redondo Shores High School in California and that Hogg graduated in 2015. The post has been retweeted more than 4,000 times and replicated on other social-media sites like Facebook. "David Hogg didn't attend #Parkland high school," the Twitter user wrote.
  "I went to school with him at Redondo Shores High School in California and he graduated in 2015. Here he is in our yearbook from 2015. He always wanted to work for CNN and be an actor." —Laguna Beach Antifa (@LagBeachAntifa9) February 21, 2018
  The claim was quickly debunked. People on Twitter pointed to the student wearing a shirt with "Eagles" on it two photos above Hogg. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School's mascot is an eagle.

Would you agree that Business Insider is a better source to use than Heavy? Discussion of what sources are best to cite is generally why we bring up issues on the talk page first.

Given that I have now given a more reliable source, please restore my section and issue an apology on my talk page for your baseless BLP-violation accusation. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What specific edit are you proposing based on the Business Insider? What material that meets WP:DUEWEIGHT is not already covered in the article?- MrX 🖋 21:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I notice in special:diff/828496734 you reverted another of my talk page attributes while accusing me of doing a BLP Violation again. I again think this is unwarranted and that you have left a misleading summary. The first time you referred to WP:NOTSCANDAL. This directs to "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". This includes a numbered list:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment
2. Opinion pieces
3. Scandal mongering
4. Self-promotion
5. Advertising, marketing or public relations

Which of these 5 are you accusing my talk page edits to have done? You have left very vague accusations and made it difficult to understand the nature of your criticisms. 3 is closest to the name of the redirect you posted. Are you accusing my talk page contributions of being written "purely to attack the reputation of another person"?

In both of my posts that you reverted, I believe the content I linked to is things which debunk conspiracies, not support them. The only reputation that could purportedly be "attacked" in these things is that of the pseudonymous conspiracy theorists who were attacking Hogg. Hogg was not being attacked by those articles. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop using shitty sources. You need to stop posting links to conspiracy theorists websites and Twitter feeds. You need to stop posting the conspiracy theories anywhere on Wikipedia. You need to stop trying to find sources to support far-right propaganda. You need to stop trying to insert fringe detail into articles. You were warned by an admin in December, yet you still do it. That tells me that you're WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the encyclopedia. Now kindly leave me alone.- MrX 🖋 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding you have demonstrated a desire not to converse further here on your talk page, but we have not resolved the issue of you deleting and disparaging the WUSA 9 source you deleted. 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. The thread is "Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Business_Insider".The discussion is about the topic David Hogg (activist). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb and others case closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
2. For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
3. Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
   

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#''Joefromrandb and others'' case closed

March 2018

don't understand why i get redacted for saying this is not a conspiracy site while others can spout conspiracy bs with no problem or am i wrong and we do pander to wacko conspiracy theorists עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. See the messages I left on your talk page.- MrX 🖋 17:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

have you redacted them?עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't wish to debate this any further. If you have an issue with my redaction, you're welcome to take it to WP:AN/I for review.- MrX 🖋 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump

I was trying to make the lead balanced, referring to the fact that commentators such as Tucker Carlson described the comment as accurate. Whilst I personally am not totally convinced about this idea, with respect to neutrality we should keep it in. I would assume a large portion of Trump supporters (40% of the United States) would not construe the remarks in this way. As for the lead sentence, I am on the fence so I will not argue about that. Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's opinion is not lead worthy for this article. Much have this has been extensively discussed on the the talk page. The lead sentence that you changed was the result of consensus. I recommend that you spend time reading the talk page and discussing any significant changes there.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello MrX, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

---

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Stormy

About Option 1/Option 2: Basic retail strategy. Instead of the customer pondering "Should I buy a widget?" get them to pondering "Which widget should I buy?" 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Exactly!- MrX 🖋 12:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Name

I know, right? Bishonen says I have a vivid imagination, but it seemed blindingly obvious to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Bishonen is not familiar with such teenage boy silliness. It's a borderline WP:DISRUPTNAME case and it may be worth reporting to WP:UAA if the user doesn't voluntarily change their username. - MrX 🖋 14:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The name is just a bit of a pun and has no intention of disrupting Wikipedia. Thanks Mike Hocks Hucker (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was Mike Huckabee's Wiki name. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New SPA

I don't have the time or energy to report this account right now, but it's disruption only as far as I can tell. ~~``

@~~``: I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. I have three or four SPA's and socks on my radar right now. I'm losing track of the new accounts that beeline directly to the most controversial subjects.- MrX 🖋 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The one that reads like a British postal code. Hold on .... PZP-003. OK not quite postal. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that one. He does seem to be having a difficult time.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's T-2 on his edits. Too bad, he just isn't listening. Anyway, looks like someone will step in soon. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello MrX, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Kyle Kashuv

These sources were reliable. I putted it back. You reverting my edit is invalid. --KyleKashuvForGAStatus (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable. Restoring material that violates our WP:BLP policy can result in you being blocked from editing.- MrX 🖋 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MrX reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Kyle Kashuv shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am, but perhaps you can explain further, with diffs please.- MrX 🖋 00:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You first. At the article talk page. Where I've been asking you to discuss edits rather than continue to gut the article. Yet, you continue to gut the article and refuse to discuss anything. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing on the talk page and seeking a middle ground (much like the article subject, ironically). I would ask you please not to accuse me of misconduct without diffs. I will not be so tolerant of such in the future.- MrX 🖋 00:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be nice if it were true. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know

I wanted to let you know I discussed a RfC you closed a while back [[7]]. As I said there, I don't agree with the closing reason. At the time I believe you were uninvolved with firearms topics but since you have become involved and I think you, like me, both want to follow policy and also have personal, honest, bias/preferences as to the relative weight material in these articles should get. I was struggling to pick words that expressed my concern without reflecting negatively upon you as an editor. If you want me to change the phrasing please let me know. A nod to @K.e.coffman: who (in no uncertain terms) suggested I may not have totally succeeded in my struggles. Springee (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Springee Thanks for letting me know. As far as I know, I don't edit firearms articles now and certainly didn't in November 2016, other than perhaps vandalism reverts. Given that it's been nearly a year and a half, I doubt that you can challenge my RfC closure now, but if you do, please let me know as I might like to participate in such a discussion.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point I wouldn't request to reopen it. If editors had new arguments I would note that I think the RfC was very close so new arguments would be justification for restarting the discussion. Again, I think we have different views on what weight justifies inclusions but I haven't felt your edits/arguments are any but good faith and based on reasoned reading of policy. Springee (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to reopen it, especially given the amount of time that has passed. If you think consensus is different than what I assessed, you can start a new RfC or request a close review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Please notify me if you do the latter. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to reopen it but if I do or if I see it reopened I'll let you know. Springee (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Comments

Regarding your comments at this AfD, it's bad form to cast aspersions on other editors, including in regard to motivations for nominating an article for deletion. Please keep your personal comments out of your comments - discussing editors in such a manner is never a good idea. If you have something to say about an editor, do it directly, not in a sly, backhanded manner. One is a good faith effort at understanding why someone did what they did, the other is not and only ends up creating a hostile environment. I'll let you decide which is which. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, you've been up my ass all week so how about you go away and leave me alone.- MrX 🖋 00:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Polite warning

You and Irn have been (Personal attack removed) If it continues, I will be going to AN/I with a complaint. This is the only polite warning you will receive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you do that. Or perhaps I will.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Warning

Hello, I'm 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! WP:BLPGROUP. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Time to block this SPA, coming attractions. Stop reverting well-sourced content. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-immigrant" isn't in the source but you're restoring it calling it "well-sourced"... I don't know if that's gaslighting or CIR but either way read the source again, and carefully. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Diplomacy barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		In recognition of your civility and effectiveness in peacefully resolving disputes related to controversial content. I believe you could do great things as an admin - Secondary sense (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)