User talk:MrX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Umbris)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MrX
Home Talk to Me Tools Articles Photos
MrX talk tools articles photos

inquiry[edit]

Hi MrX, is there any way I can contact you directly with a press inquiry? Aarontaksingmak (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarontaksingmak (talkcontribs) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aarontaksingmak: Sure, you can send me an email by clicking here. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: Perfect I've emailed. Thank you!
@Aarontaksingmak: I'm afraid I will not be able to help you with an interview. You may recall that I gave you an interview in August 2015 when you worked for another publication. Not only did you (or your editor?) not run the story, but you didn't even follow up with an acknowledgment that you had received my email responding to your interview questions. Best to you. - MrX 🖋 20:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 

Evidence[edit]

The Close challenge thread should be added as evidence. [1] You were not only blown off but told it felt like harassment, told that an arbcomm case was a waste of time and threatened with a block. (Diffs available) I'm likely short of words and restricted or I'd put it in myself after I noticed you mentioned it. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I do plan to add that later today or tomorrow, if possible. I'm juggling some real life tasks at the moment.- MrX 🖋 16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Real life is more important. Thanks for your good work. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica and 2016 election[edit]

Hello, in order to avoid an edit war, let's go back to the original source: [url]https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/data-and-dirty-tricks-channel-4-s-expose-on-cambridge-analytica-20180320-p4z56t.html - if you look at the context of the British/Israeli companies comment here there is no specific claim that these companies were used specifically to influence the *2016 election* (though that may well have been the case) even though it was misreported as such in that TOI article. More evidence is necessary here. 67.82.62.118 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK 67.82.62.118, I can't take a deep dive into this at the moment but I will look at it later and comment on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump[edit]

Your recent large section trims on this article seem well placed. In looking at the Foreign Policy section there, it appears to be completely redundant to the special topics article for Foreign Policy in the Trump Administration. This redundancy is all the way down to the individual countries which are covered which are fully redundant to the main article, and worse, they are selectively singled out and not remotely updated as well as the main article for Foreign Policy. This entire section of Foreign Policy in the Presidency article should be trimmed as you have already done elsewhere in the other section of this same article, with all redundant portions removed with the link left for the main article. More trims seem warranted since you have already started on this. CodexJustin (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments CodexJustin. I did have a look at the material under foreign policy, but I was struggling with what to trim. There's still a lot more that needs to be done, to be sure. I trimmed about 50,000 bytes, but the readable prose size did not go down at all! Feel free to jump in to help with the trimming if you see something overly detailed or already covered in another article.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back. I'm actually for trimming more of the section in its larger part and keeping the main article link, since only the main article seems to be receiving any of the updates for all the countries listed. Since editors seem happy with the trims you have already just done recently, it seems you can continue to trim all of the countries covered in the Foreign policy section since they are fully redundant in comparison to the main article for Foreign policy. I'm fully supportive of your trims and you can keep making them. The article currently at half-a-million bytes is just too long. CodexJustin (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL[edit]

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2019[edit]

Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well Gerda Arendt.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What did I do[edit]

MrX, I know we have disagreed a number of times on this topic but I'm curious about this part of an edit summary [[2]], "We're not here to repeat the excuses of the NRA's lawyers". I'm not sure what part of my change would have looked like an excuse or indicated a NPOV issue. I do agree that the Newsweek article said "letter to Congress" but the NPR article says the letter was to a senator and the actual letter, copied by NPR, supports that. However, I could be wrong because it was clearly sent to the senator in an official capacity. Also, I hope the comment about watching my citations was in error. As I said on the talk page, the two sources, NW and NPR were published on the same day. I didn't see replacing one with the other as an issue given the NPR article was more detailed and provided a copy of the original letter in the article. However, I guess I should have left the original one even though it was redundant. Anyway, I'm posting here because the comments were came across as a personal rebuke in a context where I felt I was being very even handed. I hope this was just one of those cases where we miss something in reading since I'm not seeing the issues you suggested. Take care! Springee (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: My edit summary was not an indictment of your intention. It was merely a comment about how the content read. I was mistaken about when the Newsweek article was published, so I apologize for that. We can discuss the material further on the talk page.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MrX! Springee (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)