User talk:MrX/Archive/April-June 2019

You're right[edit]

It is discouraging indeed.[1] But I believe said "user" should've been reported to ANI rather than AE. There's more than enough evidence to warrant an indef block. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I've already reported them to SPI because I'm pretty sure that they are a sock of Tarook97.- Mr X 🖋 14:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Gabbard edit reversal[edit]

Hi there, You recently reversed my edit on the Tulsi Gabbard page, saying that YouTube is not a reliable source. While under normal circumstances, I would agree with you, the source in question is a first person interview with Tulsi on a YouTube channel. This is a primary source, with exact statements from the candidate in question.

Please consider allowing this particular edit.

Mirek2 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirek2. Could you please raise the issue on the article talk page so that other editors can comment? There are exceptions in which YouTube is OK to use, but usually it's for YouTube accounts owned by reputable publishers. We should see what other editors have to say about it.- Mr X 🖋 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shapiro Reversal[edit]

Greetings MrX. I’ve come to discuss your revert of my edit on the Ben Shapiro page. The reason for my edit is that I found the previous statement to be quite the mischaracterisation. The current sentence implies that the Daily Wire article stated that *every* Muslim is uncivilised. This is not the case however, and if you read the original Daily Wire article, it refers specifically to Muslim men that “rape and brutalise women.” It is a very important distinction to make. The other part of the sentence about the presence of Muslims in Europe is also a mischaracterization. The original Daily Wire article was referring specifically to the “influx of Muslim migrants,” which is vastly different from Muslims having a presence in Europe. The edit was my attempt of increasing statement accuracy and removing bias. If you could reconsider your revert or reply to me with your thoughts, I would be very thankful.

Sincerely, Ivybones (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I’m fairly new to the Wikipedia community, so if anything I’m doing is incorrect, please inform me.

Hi Ivybones. We have an important content policy called WP:No original research. It requires that we adhere faithfully to what sources have written, without adding our own personal analysis or conclusions. Unless I'm mistaken, neither of the cited sources in Ben Shapiro contain material that is semantically equivalent to the information that you added in your edit. While your interpretation of the Daily Wire article may be different than that of the secondary sources, you cannot introduce your own interpretation into Wikipedia articles.- Mr X 🖋 20:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. But is it possible to use the original article Wikipedia refers to as a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivybones (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible, but not advisable. You should read WP:PRIMARY and I assume you have already read WP:OR.- Mr X 🖋 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chasten Buttigieg[edit]

The article Chasten Buttigieg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, the coverage is of his husband not of himself. WP:BLP1E also applies. Spouses of mayors and spouses of presidential candidates are not inherently notable, unlike those of presidents, vice-presidents, most state governors, etc.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this probably shouldn't be deleted but at this point in time it's not suitable for a standalone article. Would you object to it being redirected, MrX? Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: No, I wouldn't object since I created the redirect in the first place. - Mr X 🖋 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: @MrX: I disagree with the decision to delete the content of Chasten Buttigieg's page and reverting it to a redirect without a deletion discussion with the people who added content to the page, specifically CommonSentiments, Amkutzko, RFD, and myself. I would have made the case for example, that Chasten has been the subject of articles solely about him in The Hill, the Indianapolis Star, The Guardian, CNN, POLITICO, Mashable, HuffPost, MarieClaire, Elle, and more (just search his name in google news to see). His twitter following has also swelled in the last few months from only a few to 273,000 as his profile has risen. There is far more interest in him that the typical spouse of a mayor or spouse of a presidential candidate and I don't think it's appropriate to apply that because there generally isn't interest in these categories to suggest there isn't interest in him. He is a public figure now with a lot of interest in him and I think Wikipedia would be enriched if people searching for information specifically about him could find it. Mackmo (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump[edit]

Hey just a heads up that article is under enforced BRD. Just be careful![2] PackMecEng (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I didn't violate it did I?- Mr X 🖋 15:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly not 100% sure. You removed material, someone reverted it, and then you removed it again without going to talk and less than 24 hours later. But to be honest it is a much more confusing thing that consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Person A added the material and I removed it. Person B re-added it and I removed it again. The way I understand the page restriction is that person A needs to discuss it on the talk page before re-adding the material. In other words, restoring the status quo version does not require discussion.

At least I hope that's how it works.- Mr X 🖋 15:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am not sure when that text was first added. Looking at the history it has been a bit back and forth. @Awilley: Could you clarify for us? BTW I am not trying to insinuate something is wrong or anything should happen. Just want to be sure I understand the sanctions in place. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text was added two days ago.[3]- Mr X 🖋 16:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that exact wording, which came from a big trim of the section. But there were earlier version attributed to Barr in the lead weeks back. For what it's worth I do believe it should be attributed to Barr for now and not in Wiki's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Right. Hopefully journalists' analysis of the final report provides some additional clarity, but I'm not optimistic.- Mr X 🖋 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been virtually anybody else I would have reverted your second revert per the 1RR restriction. They were clearly both reverts and clearly both within 24 hours, and that's all 1RR cares about. Except for reverts to clear consensus and reverts of clear vandalism, I'm not aware of any exemptions to 1RR. Me, I like to keep a wikilawyer on retainer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Did I actually violate 1RR too? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe someone will topic ban me an put me out of my misery. Articles about steamboats and ghost towns are like a vacation on a hidden beach. - Mr X 🖋 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll have to screw up a lot worse than that to get topic banned. Sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aw darn!- Mr X 🖋 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis:

[4] User:Rreagan007 removes 3 sentences about the firing of James Comey, appointment of special council, the guilty pleas of Trump associates, and Trump denials and "witch hunt" sentence, and replaces them with a single sentence about there being no collusion.
[5] MrX removes that sentence as well. (Technically a revert because the material had been "added" recently)
[6] Tycoon24 reverts MrX (not a BRD or 1RR violation)
[7] MrX reverts Tycoon24 and starts a thread on the talk page [8]. This violated 1RR by about 3.5 hours and BRD by about 0.5 hrs because MrX started the talk thread after making the revert.
[9] Rreagan007 re-adds similar material. This violated the BRD rule because Rreagan had not yet participated in the talk page discussion. (They did 1.5 hrs later.)

I don't see a need to sanction anybody because I think the spirit of BRD was being followed...MrX starting discussion, and Rreagan modifying the edit on the second addition based on MrX's concerns. That said, MrX's interpretation of the sanction is incorrect. "restoring the status quo version does not require discussion." Actually it does, if you try to restore it more than once, and the "status quo" is a bit less sacred than it was under the old "Consensus Required" rule. And as Mandruss pointed out, status quo or not, you must always wait 24hrs between reverts. So as PackMecEng said, please do be more careful. ~Awilley (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Now I know and will be more careful. The 1RR was inadvertent and, if it were not now moot, I would gladly self-revert. - Mr X 🖋 18:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canceling my small change to Ball Lightning[edit]

Hello I agree to your canceling of my latest change to the Ball Lightning page.

The reason I did this change was because the volume number 4 does not appear in the rendered reference. Readers would have a hard time finding the article without this information.

I’m not an experienced editor of wikipedia. May you help me solve this problem ? ChMeessen (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChMeessen. Sure, you just needed to change the citation template from web to journal as I did here. Now the volume number renders between the article title and the journal name. - Mr X 🖋 11:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help.

You're welcome.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-motion edit war[edit]

Greetings MrX. I noticed that we are drifting into a slow-moving edit war on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, with some of the usual editors including you and me disagreeing on how to best portray recent developments. In light of the (old) "consensus required" restriction on this article, you should probably have refrained from removing disputed content while the discussion was ongoing, especially with an inflammatory characterization such as "selective quote mining" in your edit summary. This content dispute may end up at RfC if we can't get to a bona fide consensus soon, but I'd rather avoid that it ends up at WP:AE. This is why I'm contacting you here privately rather than pollute the article talk page with a behavioural discussion. I have called Awilley for admin input. — JFG ^talk 13:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take. I removed newly added content that I, and several other editors, believe is inappropriate for the article. I only did it once, so I certainly did not edit war. I stand by my edit summary as describing exactly what I felt was occurring, irrespective of who placed the material. It was not inflammatory (see Quoting out of context and [[WP:SYNTH)). I do think it was inappropriate for you to tap an admin to intervene in a mild edit dispute. The content is new, so WP:ONUS requires that those wishing to include it obtain consensus. So far, that has not happened. - Mr X 🖋 17:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying any wrongdoing on your part; just trying to prevent future drama. — JFG ^talk 08:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Inauguration Reversal[edit]

Hello MrX. I am curious about your decision to revert the "Inauguration of Donald Trump" article back to the previous version on 4 April 2019. The reason I am asking is regarding the crowd size number on the second sentence of the article, which appears to be inconsistent from the sources next to it. On the Wikipedia article, the crowd size is stated to have been "an estimated 150,000". However, citation no. 1 from the Washington Post says that "crowd estimation experts pegged the number in attendance on Friday at one-third of Obama’s 2009 audience, or 600,000 people", and citation no. 2 from Vox says that "there were anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 people on the Mall on Friday." I kindly ask of you to please reconsider the decision you made or explain your reasoning on why you changed it back, it would be much appreciated.

Kindly, Mr Ugale

Sources are not consistent, but the lead should reflect a range just like in the body of the article. Please raise the issue on the article talk page so that other editors can participate.- Mr X 🖋 11:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Do bear in mind I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not fully used to the methods and standards implemented.

Mr Ugale

Nomination of Chasten Buttigieg for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chasten Buttigieg 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/Chasten Buttigieg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you feeling okay?[edit]

I am concerned about you![10]^[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! 🤣 I thought that would catch someone's attention. No fair reporting me as a compromised account though. - Mr X 🖋 16:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be going exactly as I imagined the the talk page to be like. Thank you for giving me a smile today! PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That thread title, followed by your signature, did catch me off-guard. Kudos for upholding neutrality. — JFG ^talk 20:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really do try. - Mr X 🖋 20:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Water[edit]

Hello, Hope all is well. Last night I made some edits to the Hydrogen Water page however you reverted them back saying "You can't remove source material and replace it with links to unrelated studies". Please explain how they are "unrelated". The ingredients within hydrogen water are molecular hydrogen gas and water. The small sample of studies that I provided are all related to molecular hydrogen. There are over 700 studies of which anyone can lookup at NCBI which is why hydrogen water is becoming more common. This is the same molecular hydrogen that is being used for alternative fuel sources. Also, only one company "Dr Perricone" was listed so I thought it would be helpful to provide the public some more hydrogen water options unless Dr Perricone has some sort of marketing deal with Wikipedia. Also the page said "There is little evidence, and no scientific proof of its efficacy." This is simply untrue. The writer of that article obviously could've found evidence at NCBI. This is the first time I've made a contribution to Wikipedia so please let me know if I am doing this incorrectly or not.

Hi Morphin2020. There are several issues with your edit. First, you removed content and the three sources supporting the content. You then inserted a claim that "There are over 700 studies on the molecular hydrogen", but you didn't support that claim with a source. Also, the subject of the article is not molecular hydrogen; it's hydrogen water. Then you listed a lot of external links to some studies of hydrogen water, and some not.[11] This violates WP:ELNO. I don't quite understand the relevance of your comment: "This is the same molecular hydrogen that is being used for alternative fuel sources". I recommend that you study our policies and guidelines, and make smaller edits until you are more experienced. Also, please remember that our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not engage in advocacy.- Mr X 🖋 19:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! MrX. The content that was removed was from writers who don't have medical backgrounds and obviously didn't do their due diligence. Anyone can look up all of the published medical journals and see the studies at NCBI. Here you can easily see the studies as I've cut out the searching anyone would have to do. Hydrogen water's main ingredient is molecular hydrogen. Hence, why it's called "hydrogen water". It's the reason people drink hydrogen water. Water is simply the vessel used to consume it. So yes it is the subject. Any study that uses molecular hydrogen, whether as a gas, hydrogen water, hydrogen rich saline, or anything else is related due to the base ingredient being the same. Regarding it being an alternative fuel source was simply me trying to educate you a little on molecular hydrogen and how it is also used. Lastly, your statement on advocacy is the reason I listed multiple brands instead of just one as it is right now. Thank you for your time! Please do let me know if you have any suggestions.

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes and please consider learning how Wikipedia works before making major edits. We prefer sources that are independent from the subject (third party sources) and it doesn't matter if the authors of those sources have a medical background (how would you know that anyway?). Thanks, but I'm not interested in being educated on molecular hydrogen and certainly not by an anonymous person on the internet. If you want to propose edits to Hydrogen water, feel free to start a discussion on talk: Hydrogen water.- Mr X 🖋 22:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen water revisited[edit]

My own opinion is that there is some preliminary human-trial research for inhaled and intravenous hydrogen, but the amounts that end up in blood circulation from these is entirely different from what might happen with orally consumed hydrogen water. Research on the latter is flimsy. Also, all of antioxidant research is rife with substances that increased the antioxidant capacity of blood, but had no appreciable impact on clinically relevant outcomes. By the way, there is no U.S. FDA approval process for dietary supplements. Before companies bring a product to market there is a need to file a safety statement, but that has nothing to do with efficacy. Products may then have vaguely worded health claims (helps maintain...), but those are not submitted to FDA prior. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of scientifically confirmed health benefits doesn't slow the sale of these products by modern snake oil peddlers.- Mr X 🖋 13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until end of 2018, I was a science consultant to dietary supplement companies, advising on health claims. None of my clients ever had a hydrogen water product, but one or two had oxygen water products. A lot of silliness out there. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrX, I added a substantial first shot of information to the hydrogen water talk page. For instance, there is more clinical data on hydrogen water than either saline or inhalation, and from one review hydrogen water was cited as needing 1/100th the dosage to have the same effect. I listed several recent reviews, the review stating that re" hydrogen water, and mainstream media articles that had a more positive light. It is certainly not medicine, but the research is quite active, increasing in volume and scaling to larger trials and replicated trials. Predominantly research funded by the institutions and not privately. I will not edit but am happy to provide any clarifications needed. 38.98.37.138 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)TarnavaA[reply]

@38.98.37.138: Perhaps you could start by linking to the edit where you added information. I don't see any edits that you have made to the article.- Mr X 🖋 00:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added information to the talk page. I do not intend to edit as I have a significant conflict of interest. That said, my COI leaves me fairly close to an expert on the subject and I am happy to give the best information I can, in as neutral a sense as possible, for others without a COI to evaluate. For instance, I am in daily contact with public researchers from North America (US and Canada), Europe and Asia about ongoing clinical trials using products I developed regarding hydrogen water (roughly 20x the concentration and 50x the dosage delivered as the standard cans and pouches of ready to drink such as HFactor, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen_water I am on a flight and the charger doesn't work so will go MIA in about 12 minutes TarnavaA (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)TarnavaA[reply]

hello, did you notice the first draft I put up in the hydrogen water talk page? TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I'll have a look at it when I have more time. By the way, you can ping users from the talk page. It tends to be a bit more efficient. See WP:PING.- Mr X 🖋 22:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks appreciate the tip. I've been refreshing multiple screens not knowing if others have responded. TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello MrX/Archive,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News RfC[edit]

Hi MrX, I've closed your Fox News RfC (WP:RSN § RfC: Is Fox News a generally reliable source for reporting related to climate change?) under WP:SNOW, because there were too many objections to the way it was phrased, and the objections would most likely prevent the discussion closer from finding any consensus. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to have an uninterrupted RfC regarding Fox News on the noticeboard, as all of them (except for the 2010 one) have been aborted:

Perhaps you could work with François Robere to craft a comprehensive RfC on Fox News that is neutral enough to survive the 30-day period. Their request for feedback on the RfC wording (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264 § Fox News - sources for future discussion) received a mixed response, but your input at User:François Robere/sandbox/Fox News could pave the way to a constructive conversation with the rest of the community on a very sensitive subject. — Newslinger talk 02:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew that "Objection to RfC" was even a thing. I will not be pursuing this further.- Mr X 🖋 11:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 12:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press mention[edit]

Congratulations, you got mentioned by the press in this article regarding the Trump entry on Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 ✉ 17:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of knowledge[edit]

As with any investigation of an incident, understand the timeline can be very important to the resolution. At this diff, you noted that a senior employee said Maher signed off on the Fram's ban. There is a conversation occurring at User_talk:Iridescent#Should_heads_roll? in which the timing of knowledge is of significant import. Do you have a diff that points to this senior employee making the comment that Maher knew and signed off on the ban? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I don't have diffs at my fingertips, but I can look for them. My recollection is that Jan made a comment along the lines that T & S bans go through a signoff process. The process is documented in a flowchart that has been posted to a few locations including WP:FRAMBAN. I'm pretty sure that the flowchart depicts the ED is in the approval chain. Do you believe that to be incorrect?- Mr X 🖋 18:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I just haven't seen it. If you can find the diffs, that would be useful. Thanks for pointing out the flowchart; I did not have knowledge of it before. Looking at it, I concur with what you're saying. Either Maher did sign off and knew about the ban before it was enacted, or the flowchart wasn't followed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff [12]. As I read it, the 5% of complaints that result in office actions flow through this process.

- Mr X 🖋 19:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]