User talk:MrX

MrX

MrX	talk	articles	photos

Please post new messages at the bottom of this page with a section heading ==Like this==

or simply click here to create a new message.

Please sign your message by typing four tildes (~~~~) after it.

Lil Wyte-No Filter

Hello, I'm the person who created the No Filter article. I noticed it has been included into the deletable articles. I would like to give a few reasons why my article shouldn't be deleted.

First of all, the information is reliable since they are facts that were confirmed by the artists like the date of release, the first single, that it is a collaboration album etc.

Second, the reason I consider this album notable is because it is an album by an artist who is relatively famous: Lil Wyte. Third the guests and producers are also notable since Three 6 Mafia member DJ Paul who was confirmed as a producer on the album has his own article as well as guest rappers Twiztid.

Finally, I would like to add that the album isn't released yet (July 16 is the release date), so I consider it early to call the article unimportant since the tracklist, other guests and producers, album length are all unknown currently and there aren't any reviews either due to the fact that it's an upcoming rap album and not a released one. Abgrenv (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2013

Unfortunately, while the artist is notable, the album is not. Notability is not inherited. Notable means that reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, books, news web sites) have taken notice and written about the subject (the album, not the artist). Since the album does not exist yet, it stands to reason that it would not be notable. Please read WP:NALBUM to better understand what would be required to establish notability for this album. - MrX 21:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So if the album will be reviewed after released and if there will be interviews about the album, then it means it is notable and the article can stay? Abgrenv (talk) 13:58, 05 June 2013

No. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. - MrX 12:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Daydreamin' (Ariana Grande album)

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daydreamin' (Ariana Grande album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I think the article is is not substantially the same because I made it into a redirect before I realized that there had been a previous AfD. I think leaving the redirect is fine though. - MrX 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For helping stop a likely sock puppet. Way2veers 21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully we stopped them...for now anyway. - MrX 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reporting in.

Thought I'd better to post on your talk page rather than mine since I have only 20 items on my watchlist. Would you kindly inspect my recent contributions regarding local places and BLPs and point out what you feel about it and about the editing manner in which I've proceeded. Thanks. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think your edits looks good. I tweaked the grammar a little on Natural gas. You removed a bad redirect at Humour in Australia, but you didn't put another in it's place. I'm not sure if you thought it better to leave a blank page than have a bad redirect. Someone fixed it though be inserting the correct redirect page.

Your edits on Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health were WP:BOLD and they seem reasonable. Your removed quite a lot of sourced content (albeit possibly poorly sourced). It's fine that you did that, but be prepared for another editor to revert you if they disagree. If they do, be sure to discuss the edits on the talk page rather than reverting the other editor. See WP:BRD for the prevailing wisdom on this.

This edit gave me some pause. Your edit summary was "Removed material without proper sources", but you removed most of the article's content and 20 sources. Is it your view that all twenty sources that you removed are unreliable? Are you prepared to defend that if challenged? When I make bold and substantial deletions like this, I usually try to make a case on the talk page to try to preemptively address any objections. Again, if you are reverted, please consider the BRD cycle.

You're making good contributions and you seem to be learning quickly! Please let me know if your run into any issues. - MrX 01:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, also I just realised a BLP for a politician is notable just by holding even a district/province office(didn't know that better reconsider some of my edits). Sorry about that blank page, I just came across that probably vandalised redirect, did a quick brush up on redirects and did that edit. Didn't think about what I left behind but good someone saw that. I've probably made some more grammatical mistakes here and there since this isn't my plus point, better check up. Sometimes some users who are good at that have improved my edits.

Most of the articles related to that are founded on sources which are not exactly third party. Moreover, I'm at a loss since there mostly isn't much nationwide news coverage over those topics, and that is why I done mostly removing and especially changing the tone in which they have been in.

Regarding that article, most of these citations were based on just 3 sources in the end. From that all three are restricted to that region and are local, again no national coverage here. Since it was also in a biased tone, I removed most of it. But after you have said that, I have fetched some of that information and summarised it more properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugog Nizdast (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read about image use policy and about images having some rights or in public domain etc. It's really confusing for me, and for example I've been trying to find a suitable Indian air force Mig-21 image for this section since in the talk page also, some one mentioned it. I tried searching for public domain images using google but got nothing.(In fact everything found was from wikimedia commons). Any tips? I'm getting really confused about this copyright thing and whats allowed, I've tried to read about it though. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast. Many times, it is simply not possible to find a free image. Generally, free image are those that have been donated to Creative Commons or public domain by the photographer or artist. In the US, images produced before 1923 are automatically in the public domain. Then it becomes complicated, and it is best to assume that any images created after 1923 are under the copyright of the creator unless otherwise noted (by the creator) [In the US]. Certain historical images may be used under the Fair use doctrine. Many counties have similar copyright laws as the US, and many are signatories to the Berne convention. Anyway, it's a complex subject, and Wikipedia err's on the side of caution, so our policies are somewhat stricter that allowed by law. I assume you have already read WP:IUP.

We have a listing of free images sources here: WP:PDI. That may or may not help you with your specific quest. If you can find a suitable image on the internet, I can help you determine if it can be used, and also how to upload it with the appropriate licensing and/or fair use information. Sometimes you can contact the artist and ask them to donate the image to Creative Commons. Please let me know if you have any questions that I haven't answered. - MrX 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got a clue about this by reading all that. WP:PDI, I checked before, useful no doubt but certainly not for my current quest. I've found this [image], It is most probably not suitable but I would like to know exactly why, maybe that may clear up my doubts. This site claims that all images are used in the 'fair use' policy and their original owners may or may not have it in public domain, so do I have to trace the image's source and find out? Am I right? for example say I want to consider uploading this, how should I proceed? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and thanks a lot for that help, especially the cleanup part. :) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

According to this, that photo is owned by the Indian Air Force. My interpretation of Copyright law of India is that the photo is not public domain (or creative commons), unlike in the US where most government photos are automatically public domain. Yes, you would need to trace the image source back to the original copyright holder. A blog's claim that their use of the photo is fair use unfortunately carries no weight on Wikipedia. - MrX 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that, so technically any picture by the US army is in public domain? That must be pretty useful for us. I tried Flickr too, again dead end. I think I better stop this quest, since everything belongs to the IAF in that case. But one thing I noticed, most images which are from Flichr over here are NOT necessarily public domain, and have 'some rights reserved' with attribution to the owner. That works out fine too? I thought everything needed to be public domain and this was supposed to be very rare? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"...so technically any picture by the US army is in public domain?" - I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the general rule. It's true, many if not most photos on Flickr have at least some rights reserved. Photos that require attribution, without any other restrictions, can be used. Here is an example of such a photo that I uploaded from Flickr: Paul_Liebrandt.jpg. Some editors contact Flickr users requesting them to release specific photos to Creative Commons. In fact, you can approach any copyright holder and ask them to do this, but your results will vary. I once contacted the British Museum requesting that they donate this image for use in the Adam and Eve cylinder seal article. They pretty much flatly refused. - MrX 20:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Small question

Hi mrX, it's me again. Would kindly take a look at this edit and tell me if this citation is fine and in order? Also tell me how did you check it and what was wrong with it. I'm bit not sure about citing urls especially books with identification numbers. Thanks. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First (and only somewhat related) you can use this tool to fix bare URL references. I did this, however it does not address your question.

I don't think the citation as it was written was complete, although it's better than no citation. The DOI is useful, but it is best to include the publication name, title, author(s), volume, issue, page number(s), publication date, access date and the DOI as further described here WP:DOI. I used this tool to generate a correct citation from the DOI.

Unfortunately, there is no universally agreed-upon citation format on Wikipedia. Generally, articles should retain a consistent format throughout, to the extent possible, and the format should arise from consensus. - MrX 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot MrX! Pretty nice tools I'll make sure to try them out next time. I always wonder how cleaning and maintaining citations must be really tedious job. Another small question: the 'quote' option while citing anything? Is it important to fill it? I just realised that when you move your cursor over the in-line citation, it promptly shows the exact quote which is used for reference. Won't this be invaluable to users (especially those besides the user who put the citation) who try to maintain or rectify the sources? I haven't filled that option so far... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ugog Nizdast. I find the quote field to be useful for the reason that you mentioned, but I wouldn't use it unless the quote is needed to add clarity to the cited content. It can be useful when there is potential doubt as to what is written in the source. We also have to be cautious about copyright, and using the quote field is fair use, but overusing it could theoretically encroach on copyright. - MrX 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New article

Hi again, I have managed to write an article on Tarn Adams, which is currently a redirect. I have looked at it having this kind of notability and by my judgement it seems it deserves an article. Its still in a draft stage and is here, please briefly skim through it and tell me what do you think. I used various tools like peer reviewer and dab link solver, which mentioned I should make my lead section more lengthier and I use a lot of redundant words which was quite interesting. So I did this test and realised how bad I was. I shall make the necessary changes later but first please check it especially for copyvio or something. And I've come across some articles where I cannot verify the matter since the source can only be accessed by registering or buying a book, I've read that this is allowed but then how do we go about verifying this? won't it be misused since only people who own the said material can refer or check it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it looks good, and probably meets our notability guidelines. Portions of the 12th paragraph seem to closely paraphrase the source, so you may want to tweak it a bit to make sure that you stay clear of any copyvio concerns. There are portions that may be need to be trimmed a little to remove some excess detail. You should also consider adding a person infobox as well as persondata and a DEFAULTSORT key ( {{DEFAULTSORT: Adams, Tarn}} ).

I think you can publish it to the article mainspace any time. When you do, you can copy-paste the article from your user space to the redirect page, or you can have the redirect page deleted (via WP:CSD#G6) and then move the page to the article space, which has the added benefit of moving the edit history and giving you credit for creating the article. - MrX 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'll make sure to trim down,put defaultsort and remove trivia. The infobox I thought of adding and I'll have to ask people for a picture of him, when I put up the article.

I was planning to just copy paste on to the redirect page and now that you've said this, I feel this other way is kind of..you know. I have mostly till now refurnished stagnant articles which was as good as creating a new one. Tell me what would you do if you were in my place; place in redirect or start a new one?

If you aren't too busy, you haven't answered my previous doubt about verifying inaccessible sources... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this question: "And I've come across some articles where I cannot verify the matter since the source can only be accessed by registering or buying a book, I've read that this is allowed but then how do we go about verifying this?"

You can't. There's no expectation that any particular editor can verify every source. This principle is summarized here WP:SOURCEACCESS.

As to how I would publish an article if faced with an existing redirect page: I would usually just copy-paste because it's easier. - MrX 03:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your comment in the Kiefer Wolfowitz blocking discussion; it drills down to the heart of the matter - that editors need to be evaluated not only in terms of what they contribute, but what they stop others from contributing. Ironholds (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ironholds. Your recognition means a lot to me. - MrX 03:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello MrX. I wanted to ask you for your review of the article I posted today Anna Ayala. This person has been in recent news but I see that perhaps Wikipedia does not want this article at this time. If that is the case I just want to understand why and I don't know how or who to ask. Thank you. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi DeeplyInspired52. A large part of the article was copied from here. However, I have removed the speedy deletion nomination because the source text is available under a compatible use/share license. - MrX 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

It's been reported that Phelps had a gay experience. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/lauren-drain-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps-gay-experience_n_2877987.html (one example). How should I go about adding this to his page? Wiltthoulearn (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the speculation of a former employee and that employee has a well-known bias against the subject. Unless Fred himself publicly declares that he is gay, we can not include it in the encyclopedia. Please see our policy WP:BLP for more information. - MrX 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Wiltthoulearn (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did. You should not add this content to the article, per the policies and reasons that I mentioned above. - MrX 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tier-3

Several external reference sources have now been added to this entry - including analyst research (Bloor and Gartner) and press coverage/reviews. before this gets deleted - how many independent sources do you need and what level (beyong say a full product review or the Gartner magic quadrant, do you expect to see? Only1weasel (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC) only1weasel

I'm going to retract the AfD nomination based on the ZDNet article. Thanks for adding the additional sources. - MrX 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

hello

i saw that u edit the page mira bhayandar. u removed the external links and info about health fitness and malls. so i want to ask u that what types of links should be provided and is it wrong to provide info abt health services and malls.Arja36 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arja. The types of links that would be appropriate would be local government web sites, scholarly historical research, and a (non-commercial) visitor's bureau, if such exists. As I mentioned in response to your comment on Ugog Nizdast's talk page, I think it would be useful to collaborate on the article talk page so that we can get input from other editors interested in this topic. - MrX 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

i know all that what u posted on ugog talk page. i know that my experience and research can not be used on wikipedia articles. but since he asked for help,i responded to him. u interpreted my response to him a little bit wrong. but thanks for above advice. tell me whether it is wrong to provide info abt important places,health services and malls of a region? please ans for my this doubt. do not refer some help page, those are too lengthy to read, please ans me in ur words. Arja36 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Short lists of important features are OK, but you still need reliable sources that have made the determination about which are important (or notable). You can not create such lists based on your own experience. - MrX 13:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

although i am not raising ques on ur edit of mira bhayandar page, but i will say that if shortlist of imp feature is ok, then i think u may not have deleted info abt health services from there. it was not any essay written there but it was a brief idea, so it may exist there. its my suggestion to you, do not mind it. Arja36 (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Noël Juchereau edit

Hi, re Noël Juchereau my edits removed |author= from the two cites as |first= and |last= were both specified as well. My edit therefore didn't affect the rendered citation and no authors were lost. So I think you're the one who got it wrong. Would you rather that I keep |author= and remove |first= and |last=? Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I'm used to seeing 'first' and 'last' near the end of the citation, so I completely missed it. Thanks for catching it and I'm sorry to have been a bother. - MrX 18:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mohamad Mousavi

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohamad Mousavi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has subsequently been deleted as a hoax - presumably someone checked the relevant websites and found that there was no such player in that league. But please remember that an assertion of importance does not need to be sourced to be credible - there will be people who play at national level for Iranian teams. ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, and as I mentioned in the AfD, I did not find the claims to be credible. I did not nominate the article for speedy deletion because of the self-published source, or for lack of sources. - MrX 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Policy Question

Hi,

You recently un-reviewed a page I reviewed. During my review I labelled the article for speedy deletion. Is it Wikipedia policy to un-review pages that are marked for deletion? I usually do leave them un-reviewed but to be honest I'm not familiar with the actual policy.

Thanks,

Josh1024 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy, nor consensus, about whether or not an article nominated for speedy deletion should be marked as reviewed. In practice however, I (and other editors) find it more useful for those articles to remain unreviewed so that other editors can see them in the new page queue. That way, if the CSD is declined, the article can still get attention so that it is either deleted thorough the AfD or PROD process, or improved so that it doesn't need to be deleted. - MrX 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you help me?

There's a discussion of whether or not this source would be considered reliable to support the statement "Her parents are of Egyptian Jewish descent." on this article. The source was removed by another editor who believed it to be unreliable. Please see this entry by the source's author on the talk page. I'm not sure where to go on this. Thanks. Teammm ^talk
_email 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Teammm. I think the interfaithfamily.com source, which is corroborated by the other cited source, is sufficient for the statement. I also found this, although I think the examiner.com is largely considered unreliable around here.

We have no way of knowing if editor Natebloom (talk · contribs) is actually the author of the source article, so his talk page claims carry little weight in that regard. - MrX 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot MrX. I just needed validation, not just myself. Teammm ^talk
_email 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome Teammm. - MrX 20:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Órbita Bicycles

Hello MrX,

I request your help; I can and will provide any reference sources for my deleted article, Such as I will like to have help to write/maintain a proper article about Órbita Bicycles, 42 year old European/Portuguese reliable item that needs to have it's info included in the wikipedia db...

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamNos (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources that cover the subject in depth as required by WP:ORGDEPTH then I would be happy to take a look at them and give you my opinion as to whether a stand alone article should be include in Wikipedia. Best wishes - MrX 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WTF is wiki used for if you cant let your own article be on there?

Hi MrX but before anyone can see my creation stupid esanchez deletes everything. If he doesn't want anyone doing that to him he shouldn't do it to others. What is wiki for then? If you cant let your own article be? Answer those questions please!

-peacock560 ;( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacock560 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacock560. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your message. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Content in the encyclopedia has to be notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Did you happen to read the notice at the top of the edit window when you created your article?

Here is a good place for you to start to learn more about how to contribute to Wikipedia: New contributors' help page. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. - MrX 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mohr Publicity

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohr Publicity, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Steve Fitzgerald

Hi there, I replied to your tagging on the talk page, lets work on resolving your concerns. JmdTmp (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK - MrX 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop taking off the stuff that is being edited in

You say you want the free flow of information? Then stop undoing things that public users edit into pages, especially when other things are on the very same page that has no sources or references at all. The stuff i edit into any page on Wikipedia, will have what the public deems as credible information which links to sites talking about such subject matter. If i am not allowed to post about something and link to sites talking about said something, then there should be no other information on the wikipedia page in question, that has no references or source material. Bottom line, if you take my edits down, edits that have references, then you must also take down information that doesn't include any references at all. Otherwise, i will continue re-editing and re-posting my tid bit of information.

So knock it off with your bs buddy, because if you really are for the free flow of information upon this site, yet you take down information that OBVIOUSLY has a right to be here, then you are no better than the tyrannical system we are trying to surpass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said that I want the free flow of information. Perhaps that's something you read on another web site, such as erowid.com? I have strived to remove most of the the unsourced or poorly sourced content from the article, explaining the removal on the article talk page. Is there other unsourced content that you think should be removed? I've also explained why I removed your additions on the article talk page as well as your user talk page. I've also provided links to Wikipedia policies to support my position.

Not all information belongs in the encyclopedia, particularly the personal testimony and how-to information that you continue adding to Dimethyltryptamine. If you insist on forcing your will against our established (by community consensus) policy, then there's a very good chance that you will be blocked from editing. Instead, How about joining the article talk page discussion that I started? That way you can present your policy-based arguments for including the content that you feel so strongly about. Best wishes. - MrX 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad, it was "I am a Wikipedia editor whose simple goal is to help expand this global repository of free information" that i saw, and btw i think Erowid blows. Anyways, how is what i edited in, and put links referring to, in any way unsourced or poorly sourced content? What i wrote, was merely a summary, one which correctly details existing knowledge circulating around the DMT community. If you "create and edit articles of which I have some subject matter interest, or that I believe could benefit from my help", then SURELY if you're managing the Dimethyltryptamine article then you are or should be aware that what i am simply trying to edit into the article is very well true. If you believe it's not true, then prove me wrong (when there is undeniably proof to back up a smokable herb containing DMT to be smoked instead of vaporized, that is either smoked on it's own or mixed with an MAO-A containing herb.

The reason i include what references i do, is because it's not like Changa/Enhanced herb has a lot of reference points and studies done on it like with Ayahuasca or pure DMT, but just because it has no scientifically based paperwork, doesn't mean it's not an actual thing. If you're a reasonable guy, then surely, you know what i'm saying is true. If there was a part of an Encyclopedia for DMT, then surely one would include the fact that while it can be extracted into crystal form, it doesn't necessarily have to be smoked in crystal form and can be put onto herbs for smoking in a regular pipe. From there, if one mixes in Harmala alkaloids, it is referred to as Changa, however if it contains no Harmala alkaloids, it is simply called Enhanced Leaf. Everyone who has a particular interest in DMT, after looking into it, would def. agree with what i just said.

And when i say there are other things on the page that contain no references, i am specifically referring to anything that says "Citation Needed" or "Clarification Needed" beside it. If something says that yet is allowed onto the page (or any of the many other pages that also have that), then a simple summary of smoked herbal DMT can be put onto the page. If you don't like how i'm wording something, then by all means, word it how you like. But we are talking facts here, so please help share the facts, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and also, THIS IS INCORRECT!!!! Which is WHY i keep removing it. "Use of DMT was first encountered in the United States in the 1960s, when it was known as a “businessman's lunch” because of the rapid onset of action when smoked (2 to 5 minutes) and short duration of action (20 minutes to 1 hour)". DMT when smoked most CERTAINLY does not last 20 minutes, not even 10, it lasts about 7 minutes (or so most say). However, when it is mixed with Harmala alkaloids, like i have been trying to edit into the article from the get go, that the Harmala alkaloids potentiate and extend the DMT, and one can stretch the DMT duration out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have posted these same comments on the article talk page, so I will respond there. - MrX 12:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, Mrx?

Why does one feel the need to censor the global repository of free information between human beings? Why do you undermine the significant importance of individual beings on Earth? How is this is called an Encyclopedia, when it is one of limited information and of limited censored subjects? Does wikipedia not support the freedom of information, press, or of knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagomoon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Chicagomoon! There's no problem at all. Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, we (the community of editors here) have adopted inclusion standards for articles, because not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. This is not censorship by any definition that I'm aware of; it's editorial discretion. In the case of the article that you created, Jared Deinlein, there is simply nothing to indicate that Mr. Deinlein is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. If he is, perhaps you can find some sources (books, newspapers, magazines, journals, major news websites) that have taken notice of him and written about him in some depth. If so, the article may be retained. I would also mention that, when you created the article, there were warnings right above the edit box. Did you happen to read them, or follow any of the links that provide help for creating new articles?

Don't be discouraged if the article that you created is deleted. If you are here to help us build an encyclopedia, you should be able to overcome the learning curve pretty quickly. Feel free to ask me, or any other experienced editor for help. Best wishes - MrX 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon MrX,

I am a Communications Specialist writing on behalf of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners. As the local government body serving St. Johns County, our organization has a vested interest in the content written on the Wikipedia page designated for our region. In our efforts to provide residents, visitors, and external viewers with the most up-to-date and factual information regarding St. Johns County, we recently established a Wikipedia account to offer edits and improvements to the page. Out of respect and consideration for the rules and guidelines detailed by Wikipedia, we have made consistent efforts to offer content which we feel supports Wikipedia’s goals of sharing unbiased, community based, and reference backed information. Though we are extremely proud of St. Johns County and would love to fill the Wikipedia page with endless accolades, we recognize our responsibility to offer site visitors neutral information. We welcome any feedback on how best to balance these efforts. As an example, we would like to share the fact that St. Johns County has been recognized as having the number one school district in the state. There are numerous references explaining this recognition, how it was established, and what it means for our residents and the future of St. Johns County. With your help, we hope to share this type of County fact on Wikipedia in an appropriate fashion. Thank you in advance for your time.