User talk:MrX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
MrX
Home Talk to Me Tools Articles Photos
MrX talk tools articles photos

On Orlando[edit]

Dear Mr. X, what would it take for you to consider the Orlando Attack an Islamic Terror attack? Why is it that you can use Logic and Common Sense as a valid reason for your edits, ("Logic of course tells us that a person cannot attack an entire community, and "LGBTQ+ community" is an abstract concept anyway."), but that same logic and common sense can't be used when when a Young Muslim Male shoots 50 gay people and pledges allegiance to ISIS, and then CNN, CBS, and the FBI pick up on it. Also, if you are keen on removing the Orlando attack from the list, what other "debatable" attacks should be removed from the list?

I guess it's the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic. "Attacking the LGBTQ+ community" is simply a sensationalistic way of saying the more encyclopedic "some LGBTQ+ people were attacked". It's poor writing that doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. For us to say that the Orlando nightclub shooting was an Islamist Terrorist attack, we (editors) would have to make that conclusion ourselves by applying original research. This, one of our strictest policies says:
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.""
That means, unless sources explicitly state that he shooting was an "Islamist terrorist attack" or words incontrovertibly equivalent that, we can't include it in an article. All content must be verifiable in reliable sources, without reading between the lines. Yes, other attacks that fail to meet the same verifiability criteria should be removed as well. - MrX 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
"Yes, other attacks that fail to meet the same verifiability criteria should be removed as well" That list is about to get destroyed, because a good chunk of attacks get swept under the rug, and have limited sources to back them up. Not your or my fault, nor wikipedia's, but it is noteworthy. R00b07 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, when you call Breitbart a "radical right wing blog" aren't you admitting that you have a political dog in the fight, and are editing to further your political beliefs? I mean I don't particularly care for Breitbart, but that comment makes it crystal clear on what your motivations on editing that page are. Hope we can chat this out. Thanks. R00b07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No. I can have an opinion about a website without having dog in the fight. There are radical left wing websites too. I personally could care less whether the shooting is called an 'Islamist terrorist attack' or 'gay lover revenge shooting', as long as it's verifiable in reliable sources. I have a vested interest is in seeing the integrity of the encyclopedia upheld, because I've put hundreds of hours into trying to improve and maintain content, and influence the governance of the project so that it can fulfill its goals. You can't say that about the editors who have only made a handful of edits, and then show up five years later to vote the moment Breitbart posts their article.- MrX 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up! I'm sure plenty of people like me were confused. R00b07 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I created a page that was "speedy deleted"

I am unable to find any link where I can contest this or speak to someone about this Mark Imisides mark@drchemical.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Imisides (talkcontribs) 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can always go to deletion review and post a request that your page be reinstated. There are instructions there on how to properly post your request to have the deletion reviewed. RickinBaltimore (talk)

Tampering with comments[edit]

Please do not tamper with my comments again. If this continues I will seek admin intervention. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate my point, there is no longer a need for the RFC due to additional sources, namely the New York Times timeline of global Islamist terror attacks where Orlando is clearly mentioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sorry Mr Ernie. I didn't remove your comment on purpose. All I did was add my own comment to a blank space at then end of the section. MediaWiki did not give me an edit conflict warning nor did your comment appear in that section when I was editing, so I have no idea how it happened. Please accept my heartfelt apology. No one likes to have their comments erased.- MrX 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem thanks for the explanation. My apologies for overreacting. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's OK. - MrX 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made a few comments over the years I'd like to get removed. Mr Ernie, unfortunately this kind of stuff happens all too frequently. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Votestacking[edit]

If this votestacking you refer to had a substantial effect on Wikipedia content, it would be done far more often. There would be widespread use of Facebook and Twitter to tell the world about the current really important Wikipedia RfCs that everybody should go !vote on. In every politically controversial RfC, 95% of the !votes would be from these SPAs, the RfCs would become petitions, the concept of consensus would be destroyed, and we might as well hang it up and go home. Why doesn't that happen? Because it would be a waste of time. Why? Because consensus is not about numbers (or at least not enough about numbers to make such efforts worthwhile).
I really don't think we need to worry about that feeble attempt to influence our content; the only real effect is to make those users look ridiculous. ―Mandruss  15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends who closes the RfC. Some editors close RfCs by properly weighing arguments; some close by more-or-less counting votes; and some actually inject their own point of view into the results. I've absolutely seen RfCs closed improperly and I've seen RfC outcomes influenced by canvassing. YMMV.- MrX 15:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Then the world just hasn't caught on yet, and they will before long, and the project is doomed unless it learns how to deal with this before that happens. ―Mandruss  15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. Breitbart seems to be doing their part to whip up the rabble.- MrX 15:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WittyFeed, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CTO and COO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete[edit]

I created a page that was "speedy deleted" almost immediately without an opportunity to contest it. How do I contest it and get it reinstated Mark Imisides mark@drchemical.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Imisides (talkcontribs) 13:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mark Imisides, I've reviewed it and it won't be restored. Please stop wasting our time creating nonsense articles. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Isha sharmaa[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Isha sharmaa, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GSS (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

For the Orlando, Florida page, do you think it's necessary to have the sub title for the "2016 mass shooting"? Understandably, it was a horrible tragedy and major for the city, however it doesn't seem too necessary to have a sub title for it because of its length, especially when you start to compare other modern events in history to other cities, i.e. Paris, Dallas, New York City, etc.. Do you think we could just link it? --Adog104 Talk to me 06:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: I don't think it's necessary, but I do think it's a net positive in helping readers scan the article for information that they want. I would not be strongly opposed to removing the sub heading, and turning the hat note into a plain wikilink. I would be strongly opposed to reducing the paragraph to a single link, or in fact, reducing it at all.- MrX 12:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha, I just wanted to ask just in case as oppose to just removing it. And no, I wouldn't be in favor either of reducing it at all, it's pretty small for what it could be written out as. Thank you for responding! --Adog104 Talk to me 12:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump presi[edit]

I don't understand... what's your objection to including the full statement from Trump? I don't think it's reasonable to include only part of the sentence. You didn't even bother to weigh in at the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Becuase Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Trump's campaign. Here is a word-for-word transcript of the relevant part of his speech:
“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.” [1]
- MrX 22:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As indicated in the article Talk, the quote you reference above is from a different statement than the one be quoted in the disputed content. In any case, my question is, what's your objection to including the qualifier ("in many cases") from Trump's statement?CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Those are unnecessary, self-serving weasel words. Since the material in dispute does not use the word "all" and because it does use the word "characterizations", it is an accurate, fair summarization of Trump's articulated view on illegal immigration. - MrX 23:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the inclusion of the term "characterizations" is relevant. You can "characterize many" or "characterize all". In this case, Trump clearly "characterized many". If you leave out "many" it implies that he "characterized all". The use of the term "many" is essential to understand the distinction.CFredkin (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The word "some" is implied in the sentence that you're disputing. This all comes down to editorial discretion and semantics. I have nothing more I can say about this without repeating myself, and I'm sure neither of us want that.- MrX 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

STOP: I'm innocent of any of your savage personal attacks.[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. W124l29 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand PW-23 (right).svg
Please illustrate with a diff and by citing policy how exactly I violated WP:NPA. Argentina P-25A.svg Thank you.- MrX 21:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Being as that you refuse to stop, I shall begin to seek conflict resolution with you. As I've stated to you before: you have been obtusely insulting, combative, not I, and have harassed me, all-the-while not providing any valid or logical explanations in any comment of yours nor edit summary. That isn't welcome here, I'd hope, and I am sure that whomever decides as to what happens shall see your behavior before my, from my perspective, valid edits & attempts at civil conversation. I don't believe that I need to cite each & every rule you've broken. W124l29 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) No, you don't need to cite any rules, W124l29, but you do need to cite evidence for what you say, preferably in the form of diffs. If you don't know how to make diffs, you can give the page and timestamp for the posts where you claim mr X attacked you. Accusations of personal attacks that lack evidence are themselves personal attacks. And I don't see mr X 'refusing to stop', either: he simply asked where these supposed attacks are. Please either tell him or stop fuming on this page, and don't make silly threats about "conflict resolution". Bishonen | talk 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
May I ask why you are communicating with me in such a pithy manner? I am not making any "silly threats". I am absolutely going to begin to seek conflict resolution. Your opinion in that regard is, well, not quite appreciated. In the meantime, and I fully intend to compile a list of his personal attacks, though I do not live at my personal computer and so cannot respond on command, I found our favorite person on a news media website after looking into why he might not consider them a "reliable source"--curious, or rather ironic from my perspective, considering his obvious political bias and deference to the Rules on Wikipdia by way of his edits in addition to those past & current complaints made against him on this very Talk page. By the way, I do see that you're an administrator, so you can spare holding that over my head, but my question to you remains: may I ask why you are communicating with me in such a pithy manner? I find it quite rude, albeit not on the same level as those with whom I've communicated on the Talk page in question. W124l29 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
W124l29, if you have time to continue arguing at Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, you have time to come up with a couple of diffs so admins like myself and Bishonen can see if your "you may be blocked from editing" is justified. As Bish alludes to, making false accusations can also result in blocks. --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll put a pause on this and get back to you later; however, I do not know how to create "diffs", and would appreciate some help. All comments in question are on my Talk page and on the Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers in question. No good faith was ever assumed, which goes to the why, which has led me to read further into his edits & communications on Wikipedia. I am accusing this user of WP:TENDENTIOUS, in addition to personal attacks via repeat underhanded insults despite my efforts to be civil. I very much appreciate your refreshing candor and better civility, @NeilN:. W124l29 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Pithy? Thank you, W124l29, I was aiming for pith. It's part of my job as an admin to intervene if I should see aggressive claims without evidence on a user takpage. Please refrain from posting on this page again until and unless you have compiled the list of evidence of personal attacks of which you speak. In the meantime, if you have further complaints about my way of addressing you, please take them to my page, but kindly avoid loose unevidenced accusations against anybody there, too. The best guide to creating diffs is Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. But as I suggested above, you can manage without diffs, too. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
W124l29, please read WP:DIFF. And this is your last warning. Any more accusations against any editor of personal attacks or "repeat underhanded insults" without providing diffs will result in a block for you. This isn't the first time you've done this. [2] --NeilN talk to me 23:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
How you could manage to warn me but no other person involved, only for my repeatedly requesting that they follow Wikipedia policy, is beyond my comprehension. Lest I digress: I will attempt to respond more comprehensively to you here and within the below linked ANI within the next twenty-four hours, and until then, am requesting that this Talk section be protected from blanking per relationship to an ongoing dispute in which you have made yourselves involved—as Wikipedia administrators. I trust that you would tell me if you knew, in good interest. I would also like to know whether there is any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or suggested behavior anywhere to your knowledge for an administrator to remove him- or herself from moderation of a dispute where there might be a conflict of interest due to conflicting parties being established relationships as editors to such an administrator. All statements which I have made were grounded in objective interest, all claims by myself of hostile behavior from others were warranted, and all subsequent counter-claims by others of bias and/or hostility from me are unwarranted. I stand to all statements made on Wikipedia, and if that so warrants some sort of administrative penalty, then I accept such penalty, but only with well-formed explanation free of subjective bias. Frankly, I'm flattered that I've offended so many people, granted that you're established editors. I ask that any decision made be made not in absentia, and that I have ample opportunity to respond with consideration to the reality that not everyone can log onto Wikipedia every day or made-to-order. Thank you very much for your consideration, and your patient kindness is much appreciated. Warmest regards, W124l29 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
W124l29, it's quite easy. It's because you have provided no diffs. --NeilN talk to me 12:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned on ANI[edit]

I mentioned you and a topic related to you in an ANI that can be found here. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.- MrX 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
And a crazy psychotherapist mentioned you as the driving force behind the Second American Civil War. That can be found here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, July 18, 2016 (UTC)
Meh. Color me surprised that West would tweet some regurgitated tripe from Breitbart. - MrX 22:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 - attack page?[edit]

Yeah..hmmm...about your accusation of me creating a hate page and such, I need to see some proof. That's right, you've got none since it doesn't exist and you just falsely accused me. Have a great day. Norum 11:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPS reply at User talk:Norum#July 2016. ―Mandruss  11:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)