User talk:MrX

MrX

MrX	talk	articles	photos

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)

I would think if it was not speculation, hearsay, or rumor, but an incident that has been documented, could it be added?

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)

St. Johns County

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceilingtile1234 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ceilingtile1234 and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sure that your contributions will benefit the St. Johns County article and Wikipedia as a whole. I will keep an eye on the page and help where I can. Feel free to ask for help if you need any. - MrX 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! It looks like I spoke to soon. An admin has blocked your account for being a shared account, against our policies. Hopefully, by now, you know that you can only edit on your own behalf. Also, we do not permit promotion, although I did not assume that you intended to promote St. Johns County. You may want to clarify this if you decide to request being unblocked. - MrX 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Binders full of women

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (3rd nomination) Trackinfo (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, MrX, the World Digital Library Barnstar for your fabulous contributions to the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. I do hope you will continue to contribute, and thank you for all you do to expand on Wikimedia's mission of sharing free knowledge! SarahStierch (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. Much appreciated. I enjoyed working on this project and I may have even learned something. Thanks for your leadership and effort! - MrX 17:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter

Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!

Hi MrX! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

76.189

I would like to take a moment to try and change your mind about 76.189. I'll be posting this same message on two other user talk pages. If you could consider these relevant facts:

• The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
  1. [1] A comment made after User:Dennis Brown had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
  2. [2] A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
  3. [3] After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
  4. [4] A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
• There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
• The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
• The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
• The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
• Finally, he has apologized more than once.

Please reconsider your support of sanctions. From an outside perspective, this user has been treated unfairly, reacted fairly mildly, and has had those mild behaviors thrown back at him with very little actual support in diffs. If nothing else, let's encourage the IP to get an account and find a mentor.--v/r - TP 14:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will look at it more thoroughly and respond to your points above. I would mention though, that I also consider myself an outsider. I only recently encountered this user when then inserted themselves into an issue that I think could have been resolved much more calmly, with far fewer words. More on that later. - MrX 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right but also slightly wrong. The IP address involved is currently active and is a dynamic IP address. That the current user has had the IP address allocated for around 2 months is no evidence that it could not be taken back into the pool and reallocated sooner rather than later. Different ISPs seem to operate in different ways in this respect. Some do not deallocate the IP address until the connection is physically broken. Others will (apparently) randomly periodically reallocate an address (often overnight) presumably for maintenance or house keeping reasons. The template is thus correct and appropriate. I B Wright (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It could be interpreted either way, but the way I've interpreted it is that no one else has used the IP. My interpretation is based on what is and the other interpretation is based on what could be. I'm not saying which is right or wrong, I certainly am well taught on networking and understand how dynamic allocation works, but from my perspective the template is inappropriate to start with. If it were appropriate for any non-static IP address, we could write a bot to apply it automatically or even write it into the Wiki-software. We don't, we require humans to apply it because it's not so cut and dry as "It's not-static, template it." The policy says "to indicate other users share the same IP address" and up until and including now, no other users have shared that IP. No edits predate this user. Just my interpretation.--v/r - TP 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But they could in the future. My own ISP uses dynamic IP address allocation and would seem to change more frequently than the subject one. In fact: often when I open Wikipedia, but before I actually log into my account, there are sometimes user talk page messages waiting aimed at some other user of the IP address who edited directly from that address. Wikipedia, as far as I know does not automatically template just any IP address whether static or dynamic. A administrator would seem to add the appropriate template whenever abuse occurs from a particular IP address (the template makes reference to vandalism being monitored and reported). If I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here, bear with me because if my understanding is incorrect, please point out my error. I B Wright (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The only point of dispute is whether the template is for IPs that could be used by others or has been used by others. The way I read it, has is the correct interpretation but I've never seen a dispute of this type to have ever seen a conversation on the subject.--v/r - TP 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To address your first and second points, here are some diffs that I believe support the premises for the sanctions (acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama).

(Context for the next several diffs: "Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk." This is the origin point of the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Longtime admin needs advice about WP:BITE)

On your third point, I don't know if 76.189 actually keeps a "bad admin list", but it seems to me that they view Wikipedia as a battleground. His ingratiating behavior toward Orangemike contrasts starkly with his interactions with admins that have apparently slighted him (DennisBrown, Bbb23, BWilkins). The existence of such a list is not a factor in my !vote, but his very conspicuous, polarized interactions with admins are. It leaves me with the impression that he is here to prove a point, and not build an encyclopedia.

On your fourth point, I would stop short of an accusation of trolling. However, 76.189.109.155's reactions to Andy's blunt comments does not help his case.

On your fifth point, I don't much care what this user does on their user page or user talk page, within reason, and while they are in control of the IP address. There was some undesirable behavior by several users involved in that fiasco. None of that factored into my !vote.

On your sixth point, it's great that he apologized. It would be be fantastic if he would agree not to add to noticeboard and talk page drama in the future. Since that is unlikely to happen, the proposed sanctions seem to be the next best alternative. - MrX 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied on AN. It was nice to branch out for a moment and talked to folks independently, 4 different conversations at once is taxing, but I think we can bring it back to one thread again.--v/r - TP 22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think I have anything of more to add to the AN discussion without repeating myself and becoming annoying. I don't believe I have a significant bias against IP editors, but I suppose it's natural to trust them a little less than registered users. - MrX 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It tis what it tis. I'm about all argued out too. Only so much you can advocate for someone else about something you're not really interested in before your worn out. At least I made a small change in the course of the conversation which is more than I actually hoped for. We'll have to see what the closing sysop says.--v/r - TP 03:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree

[5] I agree with You on this one, he was US citizen.
Anyway, my edit was less erratic, since Tesla never lived in Serbia.
We need to check were there any Tesla's inventions patented in Croatia or patented during the time he lived in Croatia. Youngster was smart, maybe he already invented something while he was in the highschool. :)
Thank You for the information. Kubura (talk)

Speedy request declined

Please take Bajoo to AfD if you believe it merits deletion. LFaraone 20:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - MrX 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm back

Help copyediting

Hi MrX! I've been working on this in my sandbox and would like to move it here soon, I really need to improve my grammar, prose etc further.

• I still want to sharpen its prose, could you please check it? I want to get the hang of basic copy editing, from what all I've read on the various help pages, I have applied it over there, you can even edit it yourself if you think that's easier since I'll still learn.
• Should I use the section "Etymology" instead of what I already put there?
• Also read the MOS, but still doubts regarding usage of apostrophes or italics in terms and works. Hope I've done that properly
• There are two references there which are taken from an whole section so no page numbers, should I use short citations for them?

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast

• The article looks quite good, although there is some opportunity for grammar and style adjustments. I would be happy to help with some of these after you transfer your edits into the live article. There is some (slight) excessive wordiness and a few PEACOCK phrases, but nothing at all objectionable. My advice on improving your writing for the encyclopedia is to read good articles. Of course it's helpful to read article in the same subject category as the ones you wish to edit.
• I think "Origin of the name 'Birbal'" is fine, or simply "Name origin". "Etymology" is a little formal, but OK as well. It's also concise.
• I find myself referring back to the MOS frequently for some of the less frequently used rules. I didn't see much of anything that stood out as wrong in the article, except under the "Death" section, I believe that quote marks should not be used in a block quote.
• I'm not quite following your last question. If you know the page numbers, you can include a range (for example p. 10-18, 38-42). If not, you can simple leave them out, although it is expected that if you add a source, you have actually read the cited passages from the source. Generally, I think you should try to use the same citation format throughout an article. Are you using ProveIt to add references? - MrX 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, I have placed it in the main space after making the small fixes that you've mentioned, now you can edit it. Yes, I meant that, there is a citation which is referenced to at least about 30 pages (one whole section) of a book. I was just wondering whether to break it into smaller ones with page numbers like in the short citation format? No, I do it manually but use google books citation tool to make them. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. If you are using a book source for multiple inline references, especially if the content might be challenged, then short citations are a good idea. The template that I use is template:rp which adds the page number(s) to the superscript footnote number. You can also use the method described here: WP:CITESHORT.

I will make some copy edits to your article as soon as I clear my head of other matters. Please don't hesitate to revert any of my edits if I err or if you disagree with an edit, and especially if I change the meaning of any content. - MrX 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to scan through more GA articles for improving my prose, I even looked at the peer review nomination page of other articles and realised how hard it is to improve the prose of something that you've written yourself, thanks for your time and please do see if you can sharpen it further. I picked up something after your first copyedit.

• The article shows that it is "start class", should I place it in the assessment page of its respective wikiproject? Is that necessary?
• I tried CITESHORT and didn't succeed but I don't think it's needed for this article since there are just two main books and I think it's clearly verified and straightforward. Do you think it is or should I leave it just as it is? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reassessed the article as C class for WikiProject biography. With a little more work, I'm sure it could easily be brought up to B class. Most WikiProjects have a section for requesting assessments, and only occasionally will they be assessed otherwise. Also, it can take a long time after posting an assessment request before someone actually completes it. You can request a WikiProject Biography assessment here. WikiProject India assessment requests can be made here. - MrX 16:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, Apparently, there was some issue in the reversion. I was reverting the edit of the IP address, and the reversion tool happen to revert the edit before me (which already performed the action I was trying to perform). A little misunderstanding, just wanted to let you know. --JustBerry (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that! I will revert the notice I placed on your talk page. - MrX 23:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No worries, I'm reverting too :) --JustBerry (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hoping to be adopted

Hi, Mr. X - I'm a new editor in need of some guidance, so I'm hoping you'll be willing to adopt me. Thanks! --Ailemadrah (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ailemadrah - Welcome to Wikipedia! I would be happy to adopt you and provide you with some guidance. I don't have a formal program, but generally offer my help in the form of answering questions, explaining our policies and guidelines, reviewing your contributions and helping you locate resources that can help you in your WikiCareer™. I can also recommend areas of the encyclopedia to contribute to, beyond just editing articles.

As a starting point, would you give me some idea of what you kind of guidance you need right away? I see that you have created an article already (nice job). I also see that you received help from Binksternet, who is one of our most productive and respected contributors.

Do you plan to create more articles, or work on some of the existing articles in your areas of interest? - MrX 02:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. X! For starters, I'm confused about how best to communicate with you so that your responses show up on my talk page, where I can easily refer to them. Can I ask you a question on my talk page and then send you a talkback? --Ailemadrah (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We can use your talk page. I have it on my watch list, but I may still miss your posts. Could I ask you to append {{reply to|MrX}} to the front of any new messages to me, that way they will alert me through our notification system? This new method is a little simpler and less cumbersome than talk back templates. - MrX 14:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wat?!

Please stop obnoxiously reverting my edits. It is serious concerns. Stop being a webtroll, goodbye. --Shikku27316 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)`