Jump to content

User talk:MrX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wekeepwhatwekill (talk | contribs) at 11:56, 19 August 2020 (→‎Ayurveda RfC close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MrX
Home Talk to Me Articles Photos
MrX talk articles photos

Racial views of Donald Trump

I dont get the reason for your reversion on this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump&diff=963838810&oldid=963812037&diffmode=source . Could you explain? Urgal (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked a source unrelated to he article subject and you misrepresented what is written in the source. The effect is that the content you added violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V. Any further discussion about this should occur on the article talk page. - MrX 🖋 11:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate reversion of "white supremacist" assertions in Tucker Carlson article

The Tucker Carlson article falls under WP:BLP. The cited sources do not support the assertions in the article text about Tucker Carlson and white supremacy. Also, you assert that the label used in my edit was false. It is not. Read the source articles. The info in the sources simply does not support the assertions in the articles. As currently written, the Tucker Carlson article is libelous and unsupported by a source on the issue of white supremacy. Obviously, that is unacceptable under wikipedia guidelines. Sbelknap (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the article talk talk page please. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to self-revert

Editing my comments as you did here is a violation of the special discretionary sanction placed on the top of the page by User:TonyBallioni which state "You additionally may not edit, remove, or alter comments by other editors for any reason other than clear BLP violations or obvious vandalism as a page specific discretionary sanction." (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did he edit your comment? No. Did he remove your comment? No. Did he alter your comment? No. Was your comment in the wrong place? Yes. Is it fair to place one of your comments above all other comments so that your opinion has extra prominence? No. Is it fair to allow you to comment in two places when everyone else is limited to commenting in one place? No. Would I have moved your comment if I had noticed it? In a heartbeat. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Trump endorsement

You say on this page that you reverted one of my edits, but which one? I can’t seem to figure that one out Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure where you see that Lima Bean Farmer. I reverted an IP edit, not yours. - MrX 🖋 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that! Never mind, sorry about that! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Regarding [1], the discussion has not concluded nor been closed, and the wording has not yet been agreed. Until that clearly happens the current consensus of no consensus needs to be respected. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions do not have to be formally closed when their outcomes are clear. Unanimity is not required. More editors have agreed to the wording or a close analogue, but if your complaint is that the WHO withdrawal is missing, you could certainly add that without objection.
By the way, citing a no consensus from a convenience list of previous consensuses tends to look a bit WP:TEND. Word to the wise. - MrX 🖋 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The addition was a bit too early in my opinion. I'm not sure what you mean about WP:TEND - I thought the consensus list was there for more than convenience. I do, however, need all the words of wisdom I can get. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have summarized consensus no less that three times and no one has seriously disputed my summaries. Only Markbassett has inexplicably claimed that there is consensus for "oppose all". - MrX 🖋 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That convenience list is not an exemption from revert protocols. Citing it as such is indeed disruptive. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table

The table you made attempting to summarize editor views for covid text in the Trump lead is impressive. When I saw that discussion start I wondered how anyone could possibly wade through the outcome... you did a great job! -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It wasn't easy. - MrX 🖋 17:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens in refnames

I initially removed the leading hyphen from the refname in this edit, thinking it was a typo. Upon checking the results I saw the big red error, "The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer". I submit that (1) other editors may also see that as a typo, and (2) many editors are less diligent about checking their work. That being the case, and feeling that unnecessary opportunities for big red errors should be avoided, I wonder if you could adopt a naming convention that looks less like a typo. I think you used to include the first author's surname, but if you feel that's too long you could do something like "R" in place of the hyphen, i.e. name=R200730. This is assuming you feel that refnames are important for refs used only once, and that's a whole separate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now see that that source has no author, so I see your method. Perhaps name=Noname-200730? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use a customized hacked version of ProveIt that automatically generates the refname by concatenating the date, a hyphen, and the last name of the first author. I thought that I had a default value in case there was no last name, but it looks like the script needs some more tweaking. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Pending said tweaking, any objection to my inserting "Noname" in these cases? There is one other now in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, but don't you think the pub name would be more useful than "Noname"? Something like <ref name=NYT-200730>. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that makes sense. Speaking of tweaking, maybe it could be further tweaked to omit the space after each pipe character. This is consistent with the output of Template:Para (e.g. |first=Bob) and all CS1 doc, and is one of the most widely accepted conventions in CS1 cites. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll put that on my to do list. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - MrX 🖋 00:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, much appreciated. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Guy Macon/sandbox#Refname test. I didn't see any "big red error". I am going to ask that WP:AutoEd add this as to the list of things it fixes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My big red error was here (permalink). No explanation for the discrepancy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's annoying! I cut and pasted your version into my sandbox.[2] No big red error. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris

Please explain your removal of the text "Her romantic relationship with Speaker Brown introduced Harris to political and social elites who aided launch of her own political career" in the Kamala Harris Wikipedia article. There is ongoing discussion about the Willie Brown-Kamala Harris on the Kamala Harris talk page. I posted a statement explaining my inserted text. I substantiated by text with five references to reliable sources. Yet you removed 100% of my text without making any comment on the Talk page. Your 100% veto of all of the proposed text, without any justification of your 100% veto on the Talk page, is not a good faith attempt on your part to reach consensus. Please ameliorate this by justifying your action on the Kamala Harris Talk page under the Willie Brown/Kamala Harris Romantic Relationship thread. Jab73 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page please. - MrX 🖋 22:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tea Party Patriots Logo.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sidetrack that thread

so here are ten examples. link--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today? Are you actually serious? - MrX 🖋 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm open to the idea that CNN has declined in reliability and that their commentary has infected their newscasts, but my comment on RSN was in reference to discussions on Wikipedia. I hope we can we agree not to use a wholly unreliable source to impugn another source. - MrX 🖋 00:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"CNN is unreliable because Russian state propaganda says so" is not the most convincing argument. But such are the times we live in, I guess. MastCell Talk 01:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
This is a work of art that speaks for many of your fellow editors. Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar ornaments don't do justice to MrX's tireless efforts. Maybe a country barn-raising with a spruce bough at the peak and new digs for his livestock? SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the response was an almost comically perfect textbook example. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recognition Scjessey and SPECIFICO. It gives me no joy to have had to raise these issues with Markbassett, but like you said, I also speak for other editors. I wish he had been at least somewhat receptive to the concerns I raised. It looks like he has been topic banned, which is not the outcome I was hoping for, but it's also not unexpected. - MrX 🖋 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Hi MrX,

The Chemtrail conspiracy theory introduction currently states: 

       Those who subscribe to the theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be solar radiation management,[3] weather modification, psychological manipulation, human population control, biological or chemical warfare, or testing of biological or chemical agents on a population, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[2][5]

If you want to debate that portion please use the Chemtrail conspiracy theory talk page to do so, rather than on the associated template. Thanks.

Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altanner1991 If you want to add this to the template, you really need to seek consensus on the template talk page (see WP:BRD). Chemtrails are not a form of medicine (nor are any of the things you listed) and since this has been removed from the template before, I think you have an uphill climb. - MrX 🖋 00:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment

Hi MrX,
I noticed that you closed this discussion with a consensus to adopt the first two proposals, but you didn't actually change the guideline regarding that. If you could do that, that would be helpful. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: That's not really part of closing an RfC (although some closers do choose to implement consensus). WP:NCNOB is not edit protected, so you can implement the changes yourself, of perhaps Opera hat could do it since they initiated the proposal. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris Truancy Source Conformity

Hi,

your revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&oldid=972551393 overlaps with my edit request. Could you please take a look and address the request?

Thanks!

Best regards

--Rappatoni (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the article talk page. - MrX 🖋 15:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rappatoni (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews

Thank you for closing the RfC about PinkNews at RSN. Based on your closure, what do you think is the most appropriate color to have it listed at WP:RSP as? Green or yellow? That is, per the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend. Another editor from the RfC listed it at RSP in green, and with a truncated description that left off important parts of the closure statement, so I did expand the description a bit to match the parts of the closure describing consensus and most editors, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the color. Crossroads -talk- 03:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crossroads. According to the consensus determined by the community and the usual way we color code the entries on RSP, I guess green is the correct color, not to say that it has to be that way. Maybe it should be something like this. The words are far more important in my opinion and I'm glad you added them to the entry. The consensus was not strong and there were quite a few concerns raised by other editors about the source. You may want to consider starting a discussion on WT:RSP about it. - MrX 🖋 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Special Barnstar
Awarding you with this barnstar for closing so many discussions listed on WP:ANRFC for months or weeks. Hope to see more diligent closures from you! Kraose (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kraose. - MrX 🖋 11:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MrX. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda RfC close

I don't agree with your close of Talk:Ayurveda #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence, so I'm coming to you first to discuss what I see as the flaws in the close. I would like to make the following points:

  1. The article has been in the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for several years without challenge, which is part of an Arbitration decision. An RfC at any particular article is not competent to remove the article from that scope. Our policy WP:PSCI imposes an obligation to describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience as it is considered so in the mainstream scientific literature and MOS:BEGIN requires us to provide such descriptions in the opening paragraph. I made these points on more detail in the Discussion section of the RfC. Consequently, I believe that !votes that simply oppose the inclusion in the lead cannot be supported in policy and should have been discounted.
  2. There were 36 "support" !votes and 30 "oppose" !votes. However, some support !votes only supported inclusion in the first paragraph. Some oppose !votes opposed inclusion in the first sentence, but supported inclusion in the first paragraph. There were 20 !votes supporting inclusion in the first sentence and 16 !votes supporting inclusion in the first paragraph. There were 8 !votes arguing against inclusion in the lead, which should have been discounted.
  3. The support !voters' arguments depended on WP:PSCI,MOS:LEAD, MOS:BEGIN, WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE. I see no instances where these policies were refuted by the opposers.
  4. The oppose !voters' arguments were a mixture of denial that mainstream sources used the label pseudoscience – which was effectively rebutted by referring to sources – appeals to policies like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS without any examples of sources deemed unreliable at RSN, and assertions that sources regarded Ayurveda as scientifically-based – which were also refuted.

I do not believe that you gave sufficient weight to the strength of the support arguments, and that you failed to sufficiently account for the weaknesses of the oppose arguments.

I accept that a "no consensus for inclusion in the first sentence" close is within the bounds of a reasonable assessment of the debate. However, I believe that you failed to recognise a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph, which was strongly supported by policy. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must say at the least I was surprised by the NAC here. I was sort of expecting a panel close from experienced admins followed by a mandatory review. I do agree this was, at the least, an ill-considered close. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because you have very strong feelings about fringe topics. - MrX 🖋 19:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Ad hominem? Disappointing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the closing statement did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion. I see this as an editor who was indecisive and wanted to please both sides. Atleast a review is needed. - hako9 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I care about pleasing any side? Of course, you're welcome to request a review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. - MrX 🖋 19:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RexxS. The RfC was to determine if there should be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence, not the lead per se. Responding to each of your points
  1. The Arbcom case does not mention Ayurveda specifically, and it certainly doesn't mandate that the first sentence of the article contain a form of the word "pseudoscience". Whether the subject falls within the scope of pseudoscience because of WP:SILENT consensus is not really relevant to my assessment of consensus bounded by the four walls of the RfC discussion.
  2. I think your counts may be off. Out of 64 editors who commented, I counted 31 30 supporting inclusion in the lead sentence; 14 explicitly supporting inclusion in the lead; 29 31 explicitly opposing inclusion in the first sentence; and 9 opposing inclusion in the lead. While I agree that the supporters arguments were stronger as a whole, the oppose arguments were not entirely without merit. I did not give much consideration to the include/omit from lead arguments, since that was not the focus and it is the status quo. Upon further examination, I do see a weak consensus to include pseudoscience in the lead. Would that modification to the close satisfy your concerns?
  3. Some did. But to be fair, some of the support arguments were based on circular logic or bare assertions. ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"; "Wikipedia should be upfront about this"; "Support using pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence.")
  4. As I mentioned before, I discounted many of the oppose arguments, but I didn't discard them entirely. I believe that's well within the realm of reasonable judgment for someone who has no involvement with the subject or anything more than superficial knowledge about the subject. I also believe that my close would be upheld in review by uninvolved editors. - MrX 🖋 19:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: For reference, here is the version of the article when the RfC began [3]. As you can see, the third paragraph of the lead says "Ayurveda medicine is pseudoscientific." This material has been in the lead for more than five years [4]. Discussion: [5] No consensus means that the material should remain. - MrX 🖋 19:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom decision covers "pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". It is not your place to discount the fact that Ayurveda has been identified as in that scope by an administrator for the purposes of arbitration enforcement. A competent close must acknowledge that fact, particularly when it is pointed out in the discussion, so I reject your assertion that Ayurveda's recognition as a pseudoscience "is not really relevant to [your] assessment of consensus".
I don't think your count is accurate, but numbers are nowhere near as important as strength of argument. I am convinced that the strength of support in policy far exceeds the weak rationales provided by the opposers.
The point of the RfC as explained by El C was to resolve a dispute about where the "pseudoscience" description should be placed. There never was any doubt that it should be mentioned in the lead, and we don't need any assessment of the RfC to confirm that. Your close leaves the dispute unsettled, despite the strength of support for inclusion in the opening paragraph, as policy dictates.
I do not believe your close sufficiently assessed the case for inclusion in the opening paragraph, and I believe that view will be upheld by uninvolved editors. I'll therefore challenge your close at WP:AN. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specific decision in WP:ARBPS case do you believe has been breached by my close of the RfC?
  • I never said that I "discount the fact that Ayurveda has been identified as in that scope by an administrator for the purposes of arbitration enforcement". Where did that even come from?
  • I think my count is accurate, or at least very close to it. More importantly, I stand by my uninvolved assessment of consensus.
  • The point of the RfC as explained by El C was to answer the question: should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?[6] That is entirely different that what you claim.
  • Of course you are free to challenge my closing at WP:AN, which it sounds like you have already decided to do. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience #Discretionary sanctions specifically states " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." That's where it came from. El C was acting as "an uninvolved admin in the area of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience" (Special:Diff/965772671) and he stated his purpose as "I am mandating the following Request for Comment to resolve this dispute." (Special:Diff/965772671). There is no case for ignoring the fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience per the ArbCom decision, as that is an intrinsic part of the RfC. You have closed enough RfCs to know that consensuses often emerge that are not explicitly stated in the opening question, and I'm afraid you've missed the consensus for inclusion in the opening paragraph. I'll wait until tomorrow to see whether you are prepared to re-assess your close before taking the next step available to me. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's break this down:
  • Any uninvolved admin can dispense discretionary sanctions, or implement editing restrictions on an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Anyone can start an RfC. There is no special status bestowed upon this RfC by virtue of El C citing their lack of involvement in the topic area of pseudoscience. If you doubt this, feel free to raise it at WP:ARCA.
  • You wrote "There is no case for ignoring the fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience per the ArbCom decision". Arbcom made no such pronouncement that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, nor have they made a determination that RfCs must not ignore this presumption. If you doubt this, feel free to raise it at WP:ARCA. More importantly, I never made a judgment about whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience. I merely evaluated consensus on the strength of the arguments. I have no skin in the game.
  • As I have already stated, I re-evaluated the question of whether the subject can be described as "pseudoscience" in the lead. My assessment is that there is weak consensus, however that is not much different that the WP:SILENT consensus of the material having been in the lead for more than five years.
  • You have failed to convince me that my close was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. You are free to request a review at WP:AN, but you should be aware that per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result." - MrX 🖋 22:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate MrX's willingness to help with the backlog at ANRFC, but I have to agree with RexxS. In fact, I'd say there was a clear consensus for inclusion in the lead sentence. There was a majority for it, and the minority arguing against it made poor arguments. Crossroads -talk- 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also agree that there is a consensus for inclusion. In particular, many of the Oppose comments came from SPAs, and I note that one of them has already been blocked for sockpuppetry. Sunrise (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the "many" SPAs Sunrise. - MrX 🖋 23:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Belated reply) On consideration, using the term SPAs may have been an exaggeration on my part. Most of them are arguable to at least some degree - I did start putting together an analysis, but I see the RfC has now been reopened, so it is probably easier to just refer back to my discussion comment on this. Sunrise (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-close by admin - WP:BADNAC #2 applies here. FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted. For example, all of those arguing "no sources support 'pseudoscience'" should be tossed in light of the many sources presented (mostly by Guy Macon) supporting usage of that term. All the oppose !votes citing WP:LABEL that don't discuss the very specific part of LABEL discussing "pseudoscience" should be tossed as not policy based. Those oppose !votes citing fringe works (one of them cites the back cover of a fringe work, lol) should also be tossed as not reality based. There is at least one blocked sock whose !vote should be tossed. The closing statement did not address any of this. Once you discount all the no-policy-basis or falsely-claiming-no-sources-exist oppose !votes, I see consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. Barring that, I certainly see consensus for inclusion in the lead. Either way, this consensus is complex and should be assessed by an editor who has been vetted by the community for their ability to assess consensus: an admin. That's the global consensus at BADNAC2, and it should be followed. Lev!vich 15:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that BADNAC applies to this case, but importantly, it's not policy. From the top of the page you cited: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Unfortunately, your analysis of the RfC conspicuously omits any mention of the supporters !votes that should be discounted, including the several examples given above, and the roughly half dozen !votes without any reasoning whatsoever. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, I'm an idiot who posted this on the wrong page because I had the wrong browser tab opened. :-) Sorry to post a bolded !vote to your talk page, such a n00b move, I meant it for the AN thread and will post it there now (which, I assume, is a better place to discuss this than here). Lev!vich 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. - MrX 🖋 15:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the close challenge

Mr. X, I wanted you to know that I wholeheartedly disagree with this . As far as I'm concerned, you did the close right and believe it's a case where the people voting just didn't like the close. It's stuff like this that drives editors away from helping out. I still say you did this close correctly and the close reflected the actual consensus that was there. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 11:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Close challenge". Thank you. — Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for all your tireless contributions; more recently the (rather tough) RfC you closed on the People's Mujahedin of Iran talk page. Keep up the great work. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Stefka Bulgaria. I appreciate your kindness. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&oldid=973821437"