User talk:MrX

MrX


MrX	talk	articles	photos

Archives

2011

July - September

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closer

There wasn't a clear consensus, and I opened a new RFC recently, and opposed the same, one of the earlier Opposer support the inclusion there too. There are other problems involving COI. Please remove the mention that there was a consensus. Should I ring this up at AN or ANI? Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Prokaryotes, I don't know what you're referring to. Please provide links or diffs.- Mr X 13:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this more recent RFC. When I created that RFC i wasn't aware that there was another RFC, and that RFC it seems wasn't posted there by that section author. In the new RFC the authors who oppose inclusion posted all within hours. There is evidence that at least some of those authors have a COI. Not entirely sure how to proceed, but the previous RFC should factor in my oppose and the support of one of the other opposers who supports my RFC, when consensus is weighted. prokaryotes (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don.t know how you managed to miss the RfC that was opened 10 days before yours, but it doesn't change the outcome of the RfC that I closed anyway. Your duplicate RfC is out of process, and it would likely result in the same determination of consensus.

I respectfully decline to overturn my close, but of course you are welcome to request a close review.- Mr X 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I wait a couple of days with this (I want to offer involved editors the chance to declare their COI), otherwise my argument will involve COI. Also just by counting it appears there was just one more vote opposing, and I would obviously had voted oppose too if aware that my newer RFC oppose isn't factored in. prokaryotes (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's entirely up to you.- Mr X 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the section creator is the author of the study, but it appears he didn't started the RFC, can you confirm this (that the RFC wasn't started by the section author)? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would have any bearing on the outcome. Maybe I'm missing your point?- Mr X 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, i guess you are right, but the reason i missed that RFC was if i recall correctly that this RFC was buried somewhere at the bottom, just as a small notice box, without a sub section heading. Anyway thanks for the pointers. prokaryotes (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Hopefully it worked out on the article talk page to (most) everyone's satisfaction.- Mr X 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plimpton - duplicate RFC

You recently closed[1] an RFC at Plimpton_322#Request_for_comment.

Unfortunately, after that RFC-template expired, but before closure, someone opened a duplicate RFC at Talk:Plimpton_322#Proposal_for_inclusion. The only new response on the duplicate RFC is the person who opened the duplicate RFC.

I was very tempted to place a purely procedural close on the duplicate RFC. However I the other side has already been tossing out claims of conspiracy, suppression, and absurd conflict of interest arguments. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Please see the section immediately above. The duplicate RfC could be closed, or it could be left open to see if a new consensus develops. I don't know if it really matters either way. I do think that COI aspersions are not going to lead to a productive resolution of the dispute.- Mr X 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the section above after I hit save, chuckle. Would you close the duplicate as well? Before you closed, I had left a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Duplicate_simultaneous_RFC asking for the duplicate to be closed. Running a duplicate RFC is effectively forum shopping. I also find it difficult to believe prokaryotes didn't know about the first RFC. They closely examined the section titled Request_for_comment, with support and oppose votes, and they pinged every person and IP in the section. Including duplicate pings to supporters who using multiple usernames or edited while logged out. Alsee (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone eles will have to close the duplicate RfC, although there is no requirement that RfCs be formally closed if their outcome is obvious. My previous close has been challenged, so it would only compound the situation if I were to close the duplicate RfC.- Mr X 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I've asked for a review yesterday here. I have no idea what you mean by COI aspersions, the topic was first brought up when a study author got involved, and since other involved editors also publish math studies I saw it fit to post a general COI notice. prokaryotes (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I count correctly, with my newer RFC vote there seems to be a close tie of the amount of people opposing and supporting inclusion. Yesterday I also brought up commentary published in the magazine Science, not previously discussed, essentially calling it robust, but speculative. (See newest section here) Unfortunately, since the first RFC commenced, the opposing editors are more active. prokaryotes (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "aspersions" in sense that your stated concern about COI was not directed at specific people, but was instead directed at anyone who would care to admit it. More of a sprinkling if you will. The close tie in the number of people supporting and opposing the disputed content is indicative of no consensus. I'm not sure why the same content needs to be discussed in multiple sections. It seems a bit counterproductive.- Mr X 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the previous RFC, it was buried somewhere at the bottom of that related section if I recall correctly. If I had been aware I would have replied there obviously and had supported the inclusion. prokaryotes (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking mentor

From Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, are you interested? X1\ (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X1\. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry, but I'm not able to take on any adoptees at this time because of my limited available time. I would be happy to answer any questions you have or point you in the right direction on an as-needed basis. Just post any questions here in this section and I will do the best I can to help. - Mr X 23:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello MrX:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– —usernamekiran(talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you usernamekiran. As well to you.- Mr X 23:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing BLP material

Please don't reinstate unsourced contentious material about a living person. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. If BullRangifer has sources, they can be cited, but I believe you two (or three) are just peddling unverifiable conspiracy theories. Politrukki (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry but we don't require sources on a talk page as long as editors are discussing content in good faith. I strongly suggest you stop removing the material, in opposition to multiple experienced editors. It's very disruptive.- Mr X 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users should know that BLP applies to talk pages. Experienced users should know not to oppose good faith BLP objections. I don't know whether you did it deliberately or whether you just didn't know what you were doing – I'm assuming the latter – but reinstating BLP violations is very disruptive. Politrukki (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are uncalled for

This threat was totally uncalled for, and I strongly suggest that you limit your comments to the BLP vio and not me. You already demonstrated your unfamiliarity with BLP policy and what constitutes a RS when Opinion pieces and Perspectives are involved, so if anyone is treading anywhere, you might want to look more closely at where you're headed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ma'ma, it was very much called for and I meant every syllable of it. I, and other editors (even admins), have tried to explain to you why throwing a bunch of random policies at the wall to see which will stick is not helpful. As of late, some of your comments a just so blatantly false that it's no longer possible to assume good faith. I'm not sure if you really are confused about what policies actually mean, or if you are trying to use them as blunt objects. Either way, it has moved from being annoyingly amusing to being outright disruptive.- Mr X 15:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, he's got a point there. I do give you credit for your survival skills and personal charm. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I third the call for sending OP Enforcement for appropriate flogging and exile. My god, if this is ‘t a case of WP: Not here, and WP: Competence is required, then what is? OP couldn’t read her way out of a paper bag if the instructions were printed in 14 point type. Never have I seen such a tendentious editor so insistent on reading poorly and insistent on willfully misreading what every source has to say. Never have I seen an editor delete articles written by professors in the field, b/c they are “opinions” and then replace then with her own illiterate ramblings. OP lost the deletion discussion , and then chose to destroy the article from the inside by gutting it of content, reliable sources, and intentionally adding falsehoods to it, and writing in prose which, no offense, reads like it was written by a middle schooler. Everyone who reads that article knows less about it due to the relentless efforts of OP to edit war to destroy the article, after her initial attempt to delete the article resulted in asnow ieep, and a number of editors questioning her objectivity, competence, and judgment. My god, if this isn’t a bannable offense then what is? Every day this user is allowed to destroy pages by touching them is a day this project is endangered. She is easily the most destructive editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and has no real competitiors for the doshonour.