User talk:MrX

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

NDE Rescue[edit]

Hello MrX, I just asked a question in my talk page that is related to your comment about my contributions. Could you please review it and let me know what should be done ? Stratboy61 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will respond on your talk page.- MrX 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Mark your CSD pages as patrolled. :P Charlie the Pig (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Charlie the Pig, but I don't need reminding because I intentionally don't mark CSDs as patrolled as I explained to you on August 30. I'm happy to debate the merits of my NPP methodology in comparison with yours, but please don't post reminders for something that is a matter of personal discretion. Thank you.- MrX 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kim Davis (county clerk) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Davis (county clerk) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Excuse me. I'm sorry if my English is poor. I have some question, How the external links I added are inappropriate?

Thank you. Harunatomomi (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harunatomomi. Welcome to Wikipedia. The first and third links seem to be social media profiles on a microblog. The second seems to be a fan page. None of these are good links per WP:ELNO. An appropriate link would be something like this, which you have already used as a reference.- MrX 16:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability issue in P2PSP article[edit]


I have added some reliable sources for this article P2PSP (Springer International Publishing and W3C). Is it enough in order to remove the notability tag?

I just discovered the english version of the article and I would like to improve it (a spanish version is already available).


Cristóbal Medina López (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cristóbal Medina López. Thanks for adding those sources, however my concerns about notability remain. This seems to be a pretty obscure subject, found only in a couple of white papers. The Spanish article is not much better. I also see that you're an author of both sources so please keep WP:COI in mind. - MrX 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MrX Ok, I understand the issue. Maybe I'm not a neutral editor for this article. I saw it in Wikipedia (I didn't create this article) and I felt that I should improve it. As you can see it's not a problem for me to use my real name. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm new at this. Thanks for your help! Cristóbal Medina López (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability in BLP's[edit]

On multiple occasions now, you've restored content at Fiorina and Biden which is either unsourced or unsupported by the sources provided. WP:BLP is pretty clear that the burden of evidence resides with the editor restoring content when sourcing is in doubt.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've done that. Can you give some examples with diffs?- MrX 18:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure... here, here, and here.CFredkin (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
1st Diff
Content: "The provision is intended to increase the options of young adults and protect them against the high cost of medical bills after serious accidents or illness."
Source says: "Fortunately, since the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults now have more health insurance options than before. ... people under age 26 may also choose to enroll in their parent's plan,....Most plans let parents pay dependent coverage using pretax dollars, further reducing the cost.... you may qualify for a tax credit that reduces the cost of ACA plan coverage." - Source: Huffington Post
2nd Diff
How is this an example of "restor[ing] content at Fiorina and Biden which is either unsourced or unsupported by the sources provided"?
I removed quote mining and content that I believe is WP:UNDUE. That's not restoring unsourced content.
3rd Diff
I restored the version before your bold edits (except for a minor grammatical correction), for reasons that explained in my edit summary and on the talk page. I simply followed WP:BRD. Please discuss your specific concerns on the article talk page.- MrX 19:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Take it to ANI[edit]

I do not choose to engage with you on my talk page, as far as I can tell your concerns amount to nothing more than not liking the outcome of a decision. Feel free to take it to ANI, as I suggested, that's the place to get independent review. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your talking about. There has been no "outcome of a decision" for me to not like. The move discussion is ongoing, and trending to no consensus. Since this involves your use of admin tools, and you refuse to discuss that, I think the appropriate avenue would be for me to file a request at Arbcom. - MrX 17:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
How do you know? You haven't tried yet. ANI is thataway -----> Guy (Help!) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?[edit]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi dude could you plz paraphrase this? "stiff illustrations". YOU CAN be guided by original text is : ____ A Fierce Bad Rabbit fails for this reason, and for its overt moralizing and stiff illustrations.____ Alborzagros (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"wooden drawings", "lifeless illustrations", or maybe "catatonic bunnies".- MrX 14:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you my friend your answer helped me very much. Alborzagros (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! - MrX 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi MrX[edit]

MrX I see you are an adopter.Can you adopt me?I'm young and I think I need a mentor.-angelz (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ainsleykg. Welcome to Wikipedia.
First some advice: please don't add personal details about yourself, such as your age, on Wikipedia. I'm sure your parents would tel you that it's not a good idea to give strangers on the internet (or anywhere) your personal information. Stay safe.
I don't have a formal mentoring program, but I can help you get started editing and answer your questions. What type of contributions do you want to make on Wikipedia?- MrX 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to learn how to change the colour of my textangelz (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't change the color of text very often, but it can be done by using a template like this: {{color|orange|some text}}. More information here: template:color.- MrX 20:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis (county clerk)[edit]

It was oddly marked as unreviewed-don't know why! Wgolf (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's weird. Another wiki-mystery, I guess.- MrX 23:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎[edit]

Thank you for closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 28. I think it might be worthwhile clarifying in your close what should be relisted - is it the whole discussion, or just the Netherlands Lions categories that were nominated? StAnselm (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks.- MrX 18:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There were actually four categories in the nomination (Knights, Grand Masters, Commanders, and the parent category.) StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I have now included all four categories in the closing statement. I recommend that when they re relisted at CfD, that they be listed separately.- MrX 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Now, my understanding is that they will be restored while they are relisted - presumably that means running the bot to add them back to the article they were previously in. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the categories can and probably should be restored while the discussions are relisted. I'm unable to find any written guideline on how that is best done though. The admin who closed the original discussions could probably offer some advice.- MrX 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi MrX. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Asian Holocaust denial[edit]

I have declined your G10 speedy nomination, as I don't think this is purely an attack page, and it is quite possibly an encyclopedic subject. I have moved it to Draft, and told the author that he has to source his statements, and to demonstrate that this is not WP:SYNTH by showing that it has been discussed elsewhere. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know.- MrX 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Kazungul Saga[edit]

Hello Sir; It is about the deletion of my first article Kazungul Saga. Can you please provide me with areas of improvement, since it seems that it will be deleted. the book itself was written and released last year. Thanks

Hi MikeLukusa. The book doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it. Has the book won any awards or received critical acclaim? Any article content should be verifiable in reliable sources such as books, journals and newspapers. You can read WP:YFA to get an overview of how to create articles that meet Wikipedia's guidelines.- MrX 21:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

IBooks Author Conference[edit]

Hi there. I assume I'm writing this in the right place, but not 100% sure so apologies if it's not. Regarding the iBooks Author Conference page - what do you need to see or what changes need to be made, given the ones that have already been made, to be able to remove the notices? I don't think an objective observer would say the page reads like an ad - there's a slew of third-party media references to go along with it, making all stated facts clearly verifiable - just not sure where this goes from here. Thanks for your help in guiding the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMetrock (talkcontribs) 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BMetrock. There are several issues that I see. First, you should remove the inline external links from the body of the article. The last paragraph that mentions sponsors seems promotion and should be removed. The second paragraph contains some promotional language like "the first of its kind". There's quite a bit of name dropping throughout the article. LinkedIn should not be uses as a source. The other sources do not seem independent or objective with respect to the subject. This is evident by the prominent use of the conference logo and phrases like "The iBooks Author Conference announced today..." and "Learn more about the iBooks Author Conference by visiting their website...". I hope that helps. - MrX 03:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MrX. Ok I went through and made several changes based on your feedback. The only real thing I left was the LinkedIn article reference, on the basis of how many views it has received which is an objective measure of its utility as a reference. Deleted the last paragraph, deleted the "first of its kind" verbiage, added a supplementary reference to be in addition to the LinkedIn-based reference, and generally tightened up the piece to be more in line with Wikipedia standards. Hopefully this is sufficient. If not, please let me know what else might be necessary to get this settled. Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMetrock (talkcontribs) 03:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi BMetrock. Thanks for improving the article. What would help most are some additional independent reliable sources to show that the event is notable per WP:GNG. Pageviews of a source, especially a social network profile created by the conference organizers, is not an indication of the reliability of a source. You can read more at WP:RS.- MrX 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MrX. I have added multiple new sources to the page and despite the placement or size of logo treatment in a couple of the articles, all of them are independent according to Wikipedia's standard, i.e. no financial or legal relationship between any of these publications and this Conference (or the Awards which were also part of it) exists or ever existed. Hopefully, between the slew of sources that now is backing this information, and the reduction of the overall text to be more concise and much more matter-of-fact, the notice(s) are now ready to come off the page. Thanks for your help, once again.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 20#File:Peniston Finally CDS.jpg[edit]

The image that we discussed is nominated for deletion. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to decline to get involved in this. My involvement was limited to closing an RfC.- MrX 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic formal closure[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This stopped being productive several posts ago.- MrX 16:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello I would like to follow the procedure before I ask for a formal review. Why did you say that the request is already closed? Some random editor went on and close it for himself, that's hardly a closed status. If that is a valid closure then I could go and close other requests. I think you get my point. Now about the content. 3 editors agree with the suggestion while it seems that 2 editors disagree. 3 editors that agree with the suggestion have a RS where Djokovic himself is speaking of his ethnicity. One editor that disagrees said that this is Croatian propaganda and then went on looking for a source. He posted a youtube link on Serbian and I asked for him to provide a quote to support his stand that this source opposes the other. He didn't do that so I really don't know how to define his stand. It seems to me that he has some emotional problems accepting the fact. The other editor that disagrees really had not affirmed his stand, so I don't know what to say about that. I would appreciate if you could disclose an explanation so we could proceed. Thank you. (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.- MrX 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not going to do anything. The random editor who closed the discussion was EdJohnston who is anything but random. - MrX 23:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not a closure. That's a page protection because of edit warring. The fact that you can't determine who closed the request just backs up my point that it was done inproperly. (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I closed the original request, in an attempt to stop persistent badgering and borderline trolling about ethnicity of Djokovic's parents, which is hardly relevant for his career, and present a typical Balkan POV-war a la Nikola Tesla. In the discussion, a couple of established editors faced several IPs. Judging on the level of badgering on my talk page [1][2], Cannolis's, and HighInBC's, we're dealing with an orchestrated campaign. At this stage, I'm fairly certain we're dealing with disruptive socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis – see User talk:HighInBC#User:Asdisis_socks. Involved IPs geolocate to St. Petersburg, Kiev, Croatia, and who knows where. WP:RBI. No such user (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I would say you are correct. HighInBC 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The irony here is that when I marked the edit request as already closed at WP:ANRFC, I was not looking to get involve in more Asdisis and friends drama. - MrX 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I also don't know where's the problem with including a RS. I don't know why some Serbian editors are constantly screaming Asdisis. the discussion is very short. One reliable secondary source present. it seems to me that only some Serbian editors oppose because of emotional reasons. The edit was done by another Serbian editor according to the RS so I see no problem here. It's unfortunate we have to go to formal reviews only because some editors are pushing their point of view. (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you the same user who posted from the previous IP addresses in this section (,, If not, how did you find this discussion? - MrX 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain. My ip provided frequently changes ip, and I also edit trough mobile device, and mobile internet if prone to very frequent ip changes. It seems to me that most editors here are not familiar with that info, and they seem to think that ip changes are a sign of misdeed. Go to internet with your mobile device, write in google "my ip address" and check it. Then turn off mobile data and turn it on after few minutes. You will most probable have a different ip. You don't have to do that because mobile internet provider changes ip very frequently. I sometimes post, and see a spelling mistake, and by the time I correct it, my ip changes. I really should not have explained this because ip changes are not by itself any misdeed. Just read the discussion and don't be focused on me, but on the source and the arguments. (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You know, you can register for an user account, and avoid all of the confusion. Or you can keep hopping between IPs and virutally guarantee that nobody will take you seriously. In any case, I'm closing this discussion because it's not enriching my life and it's not improving the encyclopedia.- MrX 16:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we go. As I said, it was closed by a totally random User. I'm the least important here so hold off personal attacks. I'm just here to present a RS. The article isn't anyone's property and you really can't prevent a RS enteres the article by saying that it's Croatian propaganda. Whether his ethnicity is important or not is also something you can't decide. It is important to Djokovic who spoke of it in that source and I can't see how you could stop a RS enters the article by attacking me. Two other well established editors supported it enters the article. I'm will probably ask for a review and you will be able to present your valid arguments there. Don't think that saying it's Croatian propaganda or personal attacks will prevent a RS enters the article. (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, I would like to get it going with the formal review, but I would firstly like to hear if you would like to read the RfC. It's very evident that it was closed by a random user. If that is ok, then I could have closed it myself. It would be better if someone actually closes it before we go to formal reviews. If you don't feel like doing it, I suggest you reopen the request and let someone else close it. However, I don't think there's much trouble with this short request. Majority of editors agree with the only RS in the article. One of them even entered it to the article, but he was reverted for no reason. In fact there is no dispute, because there is the only RS and none to oppose it. I would be perfectly fine if someone unrelated closed it. At least someone who's explanation isn't "this is Balkan POV etc". A POV can also be the position to leave it out of the article, and someone who comes to oppose with statements "Croatian propaganda", "Balkan POV", "not needed" has only their own point of view. (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Which of the above IPs do you claim as your own? In any case, I'm not aware that we review edit request closings as they are pretty trivial. Your best option is to build consensus for your proposed edit on the article talk page and then, when there is a consensus, make an edit request. - MrX 16:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
What else can I do? I can go and close other people's requests. I don't think they would appreciate me doing that and then when they complain to state that their edits are not needed in the article that they are pushing "Scandinavian POV" and so on...Maybe you can help me. Do I need a consensus when all of the sources in the discussion are saying some thing? In any case, even if we make a poll we have 3 vs 2. And not to mention that those 2 who object have no source on their side. To me it's without doubt that consensus is established. (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Pirate Bay[edit]

Already, fine. But what did you mean by "artice" when you reverted my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a typo. It should have been article. The very first line in the edit window when editing the article is: {{Use dmy dates |date=December 2012}}
Information about this template is here: Template:Use dmy dates. - MrX 02:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) MrX, maybe you should know that Marioluigi98's edits so far have chiefly consisted of effectless changes like this: [3]. I'll leave the interpretation to you. Fleet Command (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's OK to make minor edits, but changing the case of template names and removing leading zeros is not very helpful. I've seen editors blocked because their sole contributions were to add or remove white space in multiple articles.- MrX 15:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello MrX,

Thank you for the swift reply! Much appreciated. The word I added to the first paragraph is due to the fact that there is no citation, therefore it is only "alleged" and not fact without a credible source. I also added the citation needed script at the end of the paragraph. Does this clear things up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The article has dozens of sources. The lead section summarizes the content in the body of the article and does not need to include citations. Any further content discussions should occur on the article talk page.- MrX 15:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Mr. X. So I will going through the sources, the first citation under the heading "Use in the Holocaust" is no. 18 "Hitler's Willing Executioners". This is a dubious source. It is contested by other historians and is not neutral. It also fails to meet the verifiability standards as set down by Wikipedia. Sorry to reply again on here, but you have been replying to other users in this way and not relegating them to the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talkcontribs) 15:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Any further content discussions should occur on the article talk page.- MrX 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Lords of Vaumartin Edit Page[edit]

Hello MrX. I got the notification that deleted my edit to the page The Lord of Vaumartin. I had written in the edits of the plot. However, to outsiders, i admit i copied it from a blog. That blog is mine! I just copied what i wrote earlier.

Thankyou winterysteppe.

Hi Winterysteppe. Unfortunately, we can not use material copied from other published sources without an explicit statement from the copyright owner that they (you) are willing to donate the material for anyone to use freely, including for commercial purposes. If you are the copyright holder, and wish to donate the material, please carefully read and follow WP:DCM. Also, a plot summary should be concise. Yours was very detailed and lengthy. Please see MOS:PLOT. - MrX 18:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
hi MrX. long story short in the copyright donation, you want a concise version of the plot and posted.
Shorter is better and in wording that is not already published is best. It looks like you have already made such edits. FYI, in the future, you should sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes in a row like this ~~~~ which will be replaced by your user name when you save the edit. - MrX 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Cezary Paszkowski, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65: Do you disagree with the reason for the deletion nomination? ("Fails WP:BASIC notability. The few reliable sources merely make passing mention of the subject.") If so, can you identify some sources?- MrX 20:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello - there is an ongoing discussion about the removal of large amounts of (well-sourced) material at Talk:Marco_Rubio#Deletion_of_material (one of the relevant diffs is here). If you have any perspective to offer, I'm sure it would be welcome. Neutralitytalk 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

OK Neutrality. I'll have a look and comment if I'm able to add anything useful.- MrX 01:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I looked. This is a little too complex for me to wrap my head around right now due real life time constraints. I may come back to it if I get more free time in the next few days.- MrX 03:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks! Neutralitytalk 06:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

High Street Phoenix[edit]

The name of this mall is Phoenix Market City and not High Street Phoenix, High Street Phoenix is located in Lower parel and Phoenix Market City is located is in Khar they are two different mall located 12 KM apart from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Nov. 14 parenthetical edit summary comment at Carly Fiorina[edit]

Just curious --- I'm not clear on what you meant by your parenthetical edit summary comment on Nov. 14 at Carly Fiorina, where you wrote: "elections are not scored like football games"[4] ?? --- Professor JR (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I confused the yellow and blue highlighting. I meant to delete "by 10 points" because of course, elections don't have points, they have percentages or votes. - MrX 13:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Astral projection[edit]

Talk:Astral projection and the actual sources cited say the exact opposite of what you said they did. Ignoring the talk page to fit your ideas now? DreamGuy (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was the editor who started the talk page discussion. What "ideas" am I trying to fit? Please be specific.- MrX 12:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)