User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2013

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	I absolutely love your photographs! Thank you for uploading them to Wikipedia! Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and the barnstar! It's my pleasure to help the project in any way I can. - MrX 02:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WoW

Seriously, have you reviewed the reflist? I've counted at least a dozen of refs that are unattributed opinions, in addition to the Google hits. The whole point of a tag is to encourage a review.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding on the article talk page, but my view is, let's just fix them. - MrX 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did some cleanup and am taking a break for a while. Would you mind giving my recent contributions a review? Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did. They seem reasonable to me. - MrX 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'll continue the cleanup later using the same apparoach.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 13:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks I appreciate the assistance on the speedy delete of the page I created. I was warned by several others that wikipedia had many admins that were quick to delete pages without due recourse, and it seems they were right. I would have appreciated some sort of "discussion" before the page was summarily dismissed. Appreciate the help.

Best regards,

Jim Delijim (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia

The proper response will not be to assume someone is using a certain part of Wikipedia as a chat discussion, considering the evidence of the contrary.

1) Add countries and states section to the article. Since we have British and other sorts of people, this is not particularly just about the USA. 2) Definition of Phobia on wiki in general is in clash with the definition of Homophobia as well as in dictionary sources. If you do not like that, take it up with that article, not me. Add a section to it. If you do not wish to improve the article, then get away from me and stop suggesting I am using this site as a general discussion. 3) A government website that has been sourced by me has yet to prove your side. The odds are against you. 4) Do not threaten me when you have no evidence of the contrary. Got it? DarkGuardianVII (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know you're talking about, but again, please sign your posts and regardless of what your viewpoint is, do not use article talk pages to discuss the subject of articles. That's not the purpose of article talk pages, as you have now been warned three times, by three different editors, in addition to the clear instructions at the top of the talk page. Stop, or risk being blocked for disruptive editing. - MrX 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't delete my page

I only want help with my page Internet Box Podcast. I just want it to look like nice and its up for speedy deletion after 10 minutes of it being up. Please dont delete it... Floobersman2 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not me that nominated the page for deletion. If you want to save it, you should add at least a couple of references from a news sources that will demonstrate that it is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. The links in the welcome message on your talk page will help you do this. Good luck! - MrX 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You beat me to CSDing Alloy of metal :) It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I caught that one quickly. Thanks for the barnstar. - MrX 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Rimzanms

Hello, User:Rimzanms, whose user page move you reverted half-an-hour ago, has moved it again. Unfortunately, a double revert is needed over a redirect, as he changed both the article space and the username. Can you please move User:Mohamed Rimzan back to User:Rimzanms where it belongs, along with his talk page? Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He's now moved it again, but this time to User:Mohamed Rimzan Mohamed Rimzan in mainspace. Altered Walter (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I will try to fix it. - MrX 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and please note correction above. Altered Walter (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just realized that you're not an administrator - I'll ask one to do this, as admin privileges are needed to move over a redirect. Thanks anyway, Altered Walter (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. That explains why his user page is not acting like a user page. - MrX 16:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

SPLC criticism

I reverted a couple of your additions of "on the right". Now, I don't know much about Ken Silverstein, but he doesn't appear to be on the right. He writes for Harper's Magazine, which is listed in Category:Modern liberal American magazines. StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made a revision with attributions and a direct quote so that the sentence in the two SPLC hate list articles accurately reflect both sources (Harpers and CS Monitor) added by Badmintonist. - MrX 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I changed out your deletion notice to Horserider2 (talk · contribs) as when I checked the deleted article, it wasn't an attack page as it didn't attack anybody. I think this is just an enthusiastic younger editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't regard it as an attack on a person or group, but rather an attack of the subject itself. In Twinkle the balloon help for G10 says "Page that serves no other purpose than to disparage the subject or some other entity." The policy page is a little more ambiguous. I guess the automatic Twinkle warning for that category is a bit harsh. In any case, I agree that the editor was probably an enthusiastic youth. - MrX 19:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WorkX Flash Award

	FlashWorkX
	Plot of WorkX Award Nosimo (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removed?

After you tagged the article Cyrus Aggarwal for speedy deletion, the author User:Ragwal removed the tag. I put it back on. Does this count as a war? If it does, could you give me some advice? Thanks, BlueRoll18 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you did the right thing. Editors are not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags from article they create. This editor is editing from at least two accounts, apparently trying to write an autobiography, and has violated a few policies already. - MrX 05:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreviewed=

About the reviewed page you unreviewed due to copy violation... sorry about that. Didn't notice it. -_- BlueRoll18 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault. Usually a bot identifies the copyvio, but in this case I found it while looking for a source so that I could remove the BLP PROD tag. - MrX 02:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Key-Thomas Märkl and Kim Märkl

Hey MrX,

sorry i havent seen that you made a copyright in my text again. But i wrote the text, so it's not copied.

What should i do for Kim Märkl ? I added references.

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdesignadler (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message on your talk page with a link to a help page for providing permission to use the copyrighted material. Or just click here: WP:DCP. - MrX 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok i give you permission for WP:DCP So now you delete the Copyright sign ?

No, sorry, that's not what I said. You need to click on the link, and carefully read the and follow the instructions. I am not the person that you give permission to. Please click on WP:DCP <---this. - MrX 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreviewed pages

No worries, I'm new to the Page Curation tools and still figuring out their proper usage. Thank you for the comments and the help, its much appreciated.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

re: I have unreviewed a page you curated

What did you mean when you said that you "have un-reviewed it again" in Sin City Deciples? The incident happened when I removed a CSD G2 tag that I placed because at the time it appeared to be such, and then just seconds after, the author fixed it. I have never used page curation (if that's what you meant by "curated"), and as such don't know how to use it. Thebestofall007 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That message is generated by the page curation tool. It happened yesterday, so I don't remember exactly why I marked it unreviewed. I think that when you removed the CSD tag, the article was automatically marked as reviewed, then around the same time I marked it as unreviewed, probably because I did not see the references. If you are using Twinkle, there is a setting that will allow pages to be marked as reviewed if certain tags are added (and apparently if CSD tags are removed). - MrX 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, OK. Yes I was using twinkle. Thebestofall007 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A teddy bear for you

File:Teddy bear 27.jpg	Save Wikipedia from non-notable teddy bears!
	This teddy bear is upset, because he has been considered non-notable. Please help multiple, independent, reliable sources write about him. Thankyou. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

lol.I'm glad someone appreciates my edit summaries. - MrX 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something 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/Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something 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 template from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Also, thanks for finding the rest of the sockpuppets! (It probably was fairly easy since they were following you around wherever you went ) The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual#24 January 2013  :/ The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, I'll bite

why? He even stated in the first line that it was his CV, which we don't host WP:NOT Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. The page showed up as reviewed before the CSD A7 showed up on the page, so I though it may have been accidentally reviewed. Ideally, we would be able to disable the "notify reviewer that the page was unreviewed" message, since it frequently causes these kinds of miscommunications. - MrX 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my time. In the future, please do not send me such notifications. i know how to review an article and you do not need to double check my work. Thanks and goodbye. I notice I am not the only one to bring this to you. You may wish to reconsider how you are handling this.Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to over react. In case I was not clear, the message is automatically generated. I did not send it. The page curation tool did. Your quarrel is with a script. - MrX 12:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reported the anomalous page curation toolbar behavior here. - MrX 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vera Thomas

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vera Thomas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: though the article doesn't make it clear, she was an international player and 1948 World Championship doubles winner. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks - MrX 14:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Isles of Shoals Light

Sorry for leaving this hanging -- I took a break for breakfast.

It occurs to me, though, when you see a very experienced editor -- more than 100 new WP:EN articles, including 77 on lighthouses and 130,000+ contributions to WMF projects -- starting a new article, that you might hang back a couple of hours before tagging deficiencies. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry. I must have neglected to set the new page patrol filter to "Were created by new editors". Please forgive my blunder. - MrX 15:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really a blunder -- no harm done. On Commons, I do a lot of new page patrol and occasionally have the same general kind of problem. On Commons, though, new pages from experienced editors don't ever show up in NPP because they are auto-patrolled. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SPLC

I had to refactor your comment on the talk page due to BLP. Your assessment isnt off, but you can't say that here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I knew you would. - MrX 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't snitch on you, but if an Arbcom clerk saw that they would have given you a stern talking too.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited August Röckel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waldheim (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) 11:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Communist Party (Serbia)

Hello MrX, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Communist Party (Serbia), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The articles Communist Party (Serbia) and Communist Party of Serbia refer to two separate parties with similar names. They are not the same party. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I looked at their respective web URLs and thought they were the same, but now I see that they are kp.rs and kps.rs. - MrX 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'm Hettore93, and i'm new and i don't speak English fluently. First of all I'm so sorry for having delated your contribution on Same-sex union legislation, but i've noticed you put it in the wrong place. The Yukon's case that you inserted was dated 2004 and between two israeli cases, which were dated 1994 and 1995. Eventually I delated your contribution because ten slots after you can see in 'Canada' that Yukon case is already present. Ok bye, and I apologize again.

Hmm. I'm a little confused. I reverted an edit by an IP editor User:93.37.199.246. Perhaps that was you, not logged in? In any case, there was not edit summary, so it looked like vandalism. I think you can continue with your intended edit, but I recommend you leave an edit summary so that your edits are not mistaken for vandalism. Best wishes. - MrX 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TWFanmily and WP:AN/I

I've mentioned you in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TWFanmily_and_User:Ellielouux. I removed your speedy tag because there are ample sources to indicate this group exists [1]. I've turned it into a redirect. Hopefully Ellielouux follows the advice I gave here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, so much for AGF. Ellielouux has reverted again. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that. I agree with making it a redirect, by the way. - MrX 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, but Ellielouux keeps edit warring into their preferred version. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know. I think they may need a time out. I have retagged the article as CSD A7. An admin should be along shortly and may make it into a redirect. - MrX 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Aura-sonic

MrX I wrote the aura-sonic, ltd. article and you commented that it needed citations. I have added several. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLurie12 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issues. I have removed the cleanup tags. - MrX 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined - United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

Improbable though it looks, this is not a hoax - see its website. In case it was an elaborate hoax, I found my way to this starting at the main UN website. I guess the moral is, when you get into the international bureaucracies, nothing is too improbable to be true. Whether it's notable is another matter, but a real UN agency probably is. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and please, just shoot me now. - MrX 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is now my favourite example for why we need to be careful with G3 blatant hoax. For my previous favourite, would you believe a festival to celebrate the cultural heritage of people of mixed Croatian/Maori descent? Check out Tarara Day. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lesson learned. I almost always perform a Google search, but because the article creator's user name is Gghghghghghghergf, I was certain that it was a hoax. Oh well. - MrX 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Shoobridge

You're kinder than me. I would have tagged {{db-hoax}} and maybe put a {{uw-vandalism2}} on the creator's talk page for good measure. It's, well, made up rubbish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Like - MrX 15:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Voskos Greek Yogurt

Hi MrX,

I believe you edited the page I made for Voskos Greek Yogurt. How can I edit it so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement and it doesn't get deleted.

Thanks, NGenerales (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The article should no longer be speedily deleted, and most of the advertising language has been removed. There still needs to be reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, news web sites) to establish notability. Did you read all of the linked help articles in the welcome message at the top of your user talk page? That would be a good starting place, then you can ask questions in areas where you need further help. - MrX 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrX,

Thank you for your input. You have been very helpful since I'm still new to wikipedia and most of this coding language is foreign to me. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind:

1. Is there a way I can temporarily remove the page from wikipedia until I fix all the edits and add additional sources?

2. The page is only visible right now in the search bar when I type in "Voskos Greek Yogurt" with case sensitivity. Is there a way for the page to show up when someone for example types in just "voskos" with lowercase?

Thanks again for your help, NGenerales (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help. There is no need to remove the page, because it is stable enough so that it should not be speedily deleted. If it were nominated for a normal deletion, it would still take seven days and a discussion before before it would be deleted. Wikipedia editing is an incremental process, so you should simply edit the article as you find additional sources.

I have created what's known as a Redirect page from Voskos to Voskos Greek Yogurt. It will work whether or not the first letter is capitalized. You can see the underlying markup here.

Best wishes - MrX 00:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrX,

I was just curious why you deleted Voskos's mission statement from the page I created. Don't you think a company's mission statement would be an integral part of their "history"? I would like to add it back if possible. NGenerales (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGenerales (talk • contribs) 03:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, as opposed to an advertising web site, we avoid slogans and mission statements by convention. See WP:MISSION. Cheers. - MrX 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text transferred from Category:Angel Bouchet

You posted a message to me that you deleted an external link on the Angel Bouchet page that I created. Which link was this? I'm seeing all of the links that I posted. Thanks!  :-) Shawna (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Shawna

I replied on your talk page. - MrX 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: All Around the World (Mindless Behavior)

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of All Around the World (Mindless Behavior), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirecting seems more sensible, I'll do that. . Thank you. GedUK  11:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

YCRBYCHI

Essentially I think this article needs to be completely redone. It should be just a bare description of the organization. The comments may be cited, but they are almost entirely from left-leaning political sources. It is the equivalent of letting every anti-Obama article be posted and referred to on the President's page. Let's keep the opening two paragraphs and delete the rest for now. We can always add more. This is in the interest of being fair to both sides (both for and against the organization).

Tbwhitham (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC) tbwhitham

This should be discussed on the article talk page and you should not just delete most of the article because you think the sources are biased. Feel free to add other notable points of view as long as they are from reliable sources. - MrX 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Help

I submitted an article about this foundation and information sharing about a genetic disorder that the foundation supports. It was tagged for deletion and before I could respond to the deletion tag it was deleted. The entire process took about 10 minutes while it took me two hours to create the article. The response was apparently ignored and I would like to know what has to be done to submit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia criteria. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of articles similar to this one’s nature, much less credible, no sources, no websites, yet they exist.

HELP?!? user: Nicholas.wade 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has very strict policies on copyright infringement. Your talk page response did not address the issues. It would have been a good idea to read the six helpful tips at the top of the article creation window when you created the article. Especially: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article"

Please read the help articles linked in the messages on your talk page and also see WP:DCP on the process to follow if you wish to donate copyrighted content to Creative Commons. - MrX 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For losing to me at tagging for deletion but CSD tagging correctly! Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere. (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I'll bet that the author of that article is feeling a little Fgggggfed about now. - MrX 16:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Outlaw Gentlemen & Shady Ladies, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley an' all

I've declined your speedy because the band does have an article. The author forgot to link it, so I have (and added it earlier in the article, too). As it's not yet released,and there are no references at all, you might like to revisit it from a different direction... Peridon (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. - MrX 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Intrasomatic model

See the wikipedia fringe noticeboard, this article Intrasomatic model is self published in one book, by a fringe paranormal author. It is not notable, and has not been reviewed in any scientific publications etc. Fodor Fan (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you determined it was fringe, but your edits were broader than just that one source, and you also introduce what I would consider POV content. Please let's discuss it on the article talk page. - MrX 04:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The author Anthony Peake is a finge non notable paranormal author (search wikipedia archives, his own wikipedia article was deleted last year becuause there are no sources for him), he is not a scientist, and his "model" exists in a self-published book only, it is not notable and has not been reviewed by the scientific community, hence why it should be deleted, the same as the other one I deleted, which is also a fringe book published by a paranormal author and has not been reviewed by the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodor Fan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss it with you on the section I started on the article talk page. I would like to involve other editors. By the way, aren't you supposed to be retired? - MrX 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The accepted scientific view (like for all paranormal phenomena) is psychological, not endorsing crackpot paranormal ideas. I think the pseudoscientific ideas should be deleted.. even those subtle body ideas should go. I mentioned the theory on the Fringe noticeboard, so other experienced editors will get involved. I am retiring for four months at the end of this week, and I think that Intrasomatic model article with get an afd. Becuase it is not notable. :) Fodor Fan (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We should not delete pseudo-scientific views, if they are notable. Of course we should also not present them as scientific, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. Again, verifiability, not truth. If we were discussing cures for cancer, the standard would be higher. OBEs are largely a poorly understood phenomenon/experience, both to mainstream and paranormal researchers. - MrX 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Having looked, the subtle theory is actually notable, so that will probably stay as that theory has been around over 100 years and mentioned in many publications. But the Peake theory is not notable, and I am not getting a single internet hit for Intrasomatic model, this may well be a case of original research. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. - MrX 05:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dualis

hello dear, Wikipedia page for Dualis is important because Symbiosis School of economics, pune is a new college, it was established in 2008 and people from around the world fail to know more about it. Also Dualis which is a symbiosis school of economics newsletter is a fresh initiative by Symbiosis School Of economics and people need to know about it.

Please check www.dualis.in and also you may check the wikipedia page of Symbiosis School Of Economics and search for the word DUALIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srq365 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the quick reply and good explanation for the speedy deletion tagging of SlideDog. I rewrote the article and removed all references to features that might come of as promotional, hoping it would meet your and wikipedias requirements. I understand that you might still not find it worthy for Wikipedia and I agree that the argument of existing similar pages is a poor one. However, I wish to challenge your tag for speedy deletion now that I've edited out what you found as promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daghendrik (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco Casa.
Message added 05:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Chak 217 GB

Hi, Can you please look at this page named Chak 217 GB

As it needs to be make changes & if you can help to make it look better.

That will be much appreciated.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armughanpk1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it and did make several copy edits. I actually needs sources at this point. It does not need a long, unsourced list of (possibly) notable residents right now. Could you add some sources, perhaps from an almanac or newspaper articles? - MrX 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much to have look at it, Please leave those name as it is, actually it's small village & references can't be provided due to it's far away from Electronic media, but i will try to do when i find something. Please leave those names as it is. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armughanpk1 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fred Phelps & Al Gore

The three edits that I made to the Fred Phelps article were reliably sourced and notable. Those edits do not violate NPOV. You have not provided any reason for your removal of my edits. All you stated is that you find them not to be neutral. That is a statement of your opinion. You did not provide what reasons and why you found my edits to be not neutral. I will go back and put my edits back in place. Going forward I will not discuss this topic on either my talk page or your talk page. These are not the correct forums for this discussion. If you want to discuss your reversal of my edit without providing a reason then you should take that discussion to the talk page of the article itself. You can find that talk page here: Al Gore's Talk Page. Have a good day!--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The message that I left on your talk page was the closest canned message that I thought described the reason why I reverted your edit. If you look at the edit summary, I also mention that the content that you added is WP:UNDUE and the article is not about Al Gore and Fred Phelps Jr. This raises the question of why you believe adding content about Al Gore and the Clinton's to the Fred Phelps article was a beneficial edit, which I agree should be discussed on the article talk page. Note also that I am not the only editor who objects to the content that you added. - MrX 16:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you MrX. You have made my point exactly. You should not have written on my talk page, you admit this yourself. If there are other editors that disagree with my edit then it is at that talk page that you need to be discussing it. My talk page is not the right place and your talk page is definitely not the right place.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of collaborative editing. Please review WP:TPG. Bye now. - MrX 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you directed me to review a certain page indicates that you could not find a specific reason that your brought up the Phelps/Gore issue on my talk page. It also proves that you have no reason to be discussing it your talk page. I will repeat if you want to rationally discuss the Phelps/Gore issues then I would encourage you to go the Phelps talk page and engage in mature conversation over there--where Phelps/Gore should be discussed.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Arnone

Looks like we've got a WP:COI or WP:AUTO on this recreation of a previously deleted article. I seconded your prod but the WP:SPA removed it. Will you be taking this to AfD? That is a move I would support. Qworty (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right about the COI and AUTO, but at least there are references now. I've unreviewed the article so that we can get a few more eyes on it. I'm disinclined to take it to AfD myself, at this point. - MrX 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

SPONGE

Hello. I hope you realize this article has sources and is not a hoax. Why did you try to delete it? And who are you? Thanks. Hefha72 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I do. I apologize for the misfire. I am MrX.- MrX 00:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sydney Convicts Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Convicts Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Theologically speaking...

Thank you for refactoring my theology, Archdeacon! Seriously, perhaps my humour was slightly off-key there, apologies for that. All the best! Basket _Feudalist 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I've also been known to go slightly off the rails in similar articles. - MrX 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CRM, ERP, Hosted, SCM, Reporting and EAM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help understanding cleanup tag you added to Westbrook Public Schools

Hi MrX! Back in in December you added a cleanup tag to this article, but I don't quite follow what the issue is. I started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Westbrook Public Schools#What needs to be cleaned up??. Would you please join the discussion or illustrate what you think the issues are, or point to an exemplar article? Many thanks in advance!--Arg342 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article just needs to be fleshed out a little and written as prose, rather than a bullet list. If you click on the link in the box at the top of the article you will see a layout guide. An example of a similar article that is more complete is Bridgeport Public Schools. You can also click on the category links at the bottom of the article to find more examples of school district articles. WP:MOS may also be helpful. Best wishes. - MrX 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me see what I can do. Thanks for the feedback.--Arg342 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of \Doub's Mill

A tag has been placed on \Doub's Mill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sergio Michel

Greetings MrX,

From what I understand, the previous deletion requests were removed because it was flagged for an insufficient reason. I re-added the speedy deletion requests because it satisfied other criteria for speedy deletion.

Specifically:

1) The article is a recreation of a previously deleted article (section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion)

2) Article was created by blocked user. Three accounts have been blocked by admins already, including Sergio Michel's personal wikipedia account (section G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion)

• • AuggiePaoli (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • RockFanUK (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • SergioMichel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

3) The article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (this is a lower standard than notability) (section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion)

"An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

I don't mean to step on any feet but I am just confused that this wikipedia entry is still up even though it meets CSD criteria. Let me know what you think as I think it would be appropriate to re-add the speedy deletion tag but with your feedback on the above first.

-- Wikibronx (talk) 19:05, 10 Feburary 2013 (UTC)

I understand the history of the article, however the statements "Sergio Michel appeared on Telemundo's Corazon Valiente as a hitman named El Rubio" and "Sergio Michel is the host and announcer of Celebrity Boxing" are both assert significance. To put it plainly, the assertion of significance is he was on TV.

Remember that CSD is a narrowly construed criterion for deletion without a broader community discussion. It's a short cut to be use only in very clear cases. Generally, if even one other editor (excluding the creator or sockpuppets) oppose a CSD, that's the end. It should not be re-nominated. The next logical step is AfD where, if your reasoning is sound, other editors will form consensus to delete the article after due discussion. I hope that helps. - MrX 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Please note that the other editor that is opposing the CSD is the original author of the article (In fact I did not realize this until you stated so in your opening paragraph of his talk page). I've been going through his cited sources/references just to verify that they are in fact substantiating any information he wrote in the page. There were a few red flags. He has cited youtube videos to prove that he played a role in a TV show. However the clips from the show illustrate that this was a minor and brief non-speaking role. I don't believe that a minor nonspeaking role in a TV show assert significance. I'd imagine that would open the flood gates for all actors who attain a small bit role in a film or tv show to publish a Wikipedia page about themselves based on an insignificant role.

His second assertion of being a host for a Celebrity Boxing match isn't demonstrated by his cited articles. At best, his cited article indicates he was hired for a single match that ended up never materializing (per his own cited reference). There is nothing in his referenced URL that substantiates that he was hired as a host on an ongoing basis. Author of the article continues to revert my changes when I edit the article to reflect that fact.

I don't mind an AfD, however I feel that the aforementioned points above already demonstrate cause for CSD. -- Wikibronx (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've given you the best advice I have at the moment: Take it to AfD, or continue tilting at windmills. The choice is yours. - MrX 21:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me?

i have recived a message from u saying "soon 2 b deleted" or something like that. r u planning 2 delete my article improvements or something? I did write an 'article' somewhere that "u only delete someone's article if ur jelouse of it. pls just ask me to write an article 4 u 2 delete if u wanna delete one of mine..." is it a response? send me a message if that's what it's about. other wise i don't get what ur talking about. by the way if u have a horse u rock. :) --HorseLuver13(The best horse rider around)!!! (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)--HorseLuver13(The best horse rider around)!!! (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)  :)

Excuse you, indeed. Please don't send me text messages on my user talk page. SVO, or goodbye. - MrX 21:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bootstrap_Concentration_Camp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.103.233 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

About the page Royal Flag (Royal College, Colombo)

1. Numbered list item

This page is completely made under the permission of Royal College, Colombo principal and the Image of Royal College flag is free to use. (But not to be edited) Sorry for any inconvenience. for reference visit http://royalcollege.lk/pages/about-royal/identity/flag/ Please take your Speedy Deletion back. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisaru (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't set conditions on your contributions on Wikipedia. Please see WP:DCP for the process to follow if you wish to donate copyrighted content to Creative Commons. Best wishes. - MrX 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Creeb Dogg LBC

hello mr. x

i just got the message on wikipedia that my pace about creep dogg lbc has been deleted. can u please help me to create that site again correkt? creep dogg himself ask me if i can take care of the site. im his manager in germany but the site should b build up in english. what was wrong with the page?

many thanks miriam — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsTolliver (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but if you read all of the linked help articles in the welcome message on your talk page, you will get great guidance on how to create an article and also background information on Wikipedia's purpose and policies. Please keep in mind that you can not use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and we discourage editing where there is a conflict of interest. - MrX 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You proposed my article Dr.A.K Jamil for deletion for lacke of references...

Sir, I want to know why my article proposed for deletion even the article has breen cited by reliablesources, 1. ^ JAMIL, A. K. (1 September 1974). "A simple device for teaching controlled ventilation". Anaesthesia 29 (5): 605–606. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1974.tb00729.x. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/32241408/a-simple-device-for-teaching-controlled-ventilation. Retrieved 9 February 2013. 2. ^ Ahmad Khan Jamil. Marquis Who's Who. Retrieved 3 Oct 2012

B.J.A: is a reliable journal,while maquis who is who is also reliable institution Zarghun11 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not see the reference because, when you start a new a line of text with a space like you did here ^, some of the text flows off the screen and can't be seen (see original version: [2]). In other words, when you are editing, you should not indent paragraphs or put any blank space in front of your sentences. - MrX 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Moares

I have removed your BLP-prod because this is not a living person - according to the article he died in 2003. I don't find any confirmation, though and I suspect it's a hoax. I will probably PROD or AFD it after I do a few more checks. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. - MrX 15:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

MrX, thanks for your !vote and strong expression of support during my RfA. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I simple voted my conscience. Good luck to you next time, if you decide to stand for adminship again. - MrX 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Annata

declined speedy deletion as "multinational corporation" asserts significance, a lower standard than noatability. Dlohcierekim 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What is significant about being a multinational corporation when any company with a web site can credibly make such a claim? I think that's an overly flexible-interpretation of CSD A7. - MrX 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An assertion is an assertion. Any assertion of significance that is credible. As you say, subject could credibly claim international scope and still not be notable. Determining notability is more difficult than recognizing a claim of significance. There is always WP:PROD where an assertion of significance exists but the subject is not notable. If notability is in doubt, there is AfD. Of interest is that I tagged it as being of questionable notability and that tag was removed. So perhaps anothe user questions the lack of notability? At any rate, if the subject proves not notable, we can delete it under prod or AfD. Dlohcierekim 20:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. It's always a judgement call and the process is imperfect. Thanks for listening. - MrX 21:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My first contribution

Hi there, MrX! I just checked upon my first contribution on Wikipedia (Hannah Hart) and noticed you had reviewed it! Thanks for that. I have been using Wikipedia for ages and only just started to contribute, so I'm still figuring stuff out. The fact that quite an experienced editor such as yourself found the page alright, means a lot - so thanks! All the best,

Jasmine Mariën (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. - MrX 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

link removed on Pachino

Hi MrX, the link that you removed, link to a web portal that represent an unique font of info about Pachino's history, culture, people and consistent with the contents of the wiki, most of the other links showed. it is not a spam.So i think that, that link can be appropriate.

Magellano2013 (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all of the extraneous links that promote tourist destinations, local sports teams and news portals. Wikipedia articles should not be used as link farms (see ELNO). If the content on those web sites is encyclopedic and directly related to the town of Pachino, then that information should be added to the article with reliable source citations. In other words, we generally should not send readers to other web sites for information about the subject. - MrX 14:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr X

Thanks again Mr X - I was eager to contribute some information on 1970s uk comic strips as they are quite specialist subjects. I saw a link for the Teahouse and will definitely be exploring - so many best practices to take into account. Any advice & tips from people is much appreciated. Cheryl 14 feb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffeiy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr X - as you know I'm new to Wikipedia.

I hope I can help in a small way, and apologies for any mistakes I make. Probably I am one of the older people registered.

My main speciality is UK comics mid 1970s to mid 1980s and certain titles after from my days as a collector (so should be able to add more detail and references to these pages). I also have an interest in politics (late 1980s onwards), business and history (specifically 16th century, 17th century, World War 1 and World War 2 - so hope I can contribute in a small way to these areas.

Should I try and get adopted on Wiki? It sounds like a good thing.

Regards, Cheryl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffeiy (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cheryl (Muffeiy) - Welcome to Wikipedia! You may indeed benefit from being adopted, or you can just start reading some of the help tutorials and start with some small edits on existing article so that you can learn about wiki formatting, article layout and citing references. Of course you can always ask questions if you need help. I spent a couple of years editing and reading before I had the courage to create an article from scratch, and when I did, I went through the new article review process. There are people here of all ages, from all around the world, with diverse backgrounds, so I'm sure there's a place for you to fit into the community. I recommend taking it slow and learning from your mistakes. Best wishes. - MrX 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

John Irie Dingo

I did go ahead and delete the thing, more as A7. WP:CSD#G10 does not apply to the dead. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. - MrX 02:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Vince Williams (ice hockey)

Hi, just wanted to say that the page you nominated for deletion via WP:BLPPROD, Vince Williams (ice hockey), was a perfectly good article apart from its lack of referencess. I added refs, categories, and an infobox, and untagged the page. BlueRoll18 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It may have been a perfectly good article, but BLP's requires sourcing for very valid reasons determined by community consensus. Also, articles, especially BLPs, should be sourced before they are published to the article main space, as noted at the top of the new article edit window: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." - MrX 04:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I understand you can't fix every article you find with a BLP issue. Thanks. BlueRoll18 05:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging

You added a {{mergefrom}} to Lama (name), but that's only half the job: you need to add the {{mergeto}} at the target page too. PamD 15:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I learned something new today. Yes, I will try to do it correctly in the future. Thank you. - MrX 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean that you will not nominate me?

I have been doing this for an entire 2 hours!!!

For my background information, please go to snipurl.com/wikipediaresume !Mariokart123456 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Your nomination is in the mail. See also - MrX 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Belchfire. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Bible and homosexuality, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bless your heart. - MrX 05:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No sweet tea?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your revert removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content of unknown origins. That's an unconstructive edit, any day of the week. Bless you, too. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Mbreht / Kirlian photography

Hello. I'm not very experienced with en.wikipedia, so may I ask you what can be done in order to stop the spam by Mbreht? He is constantly spamming the bg.wiki, claiming that Ignat Igantov is a notorious scientist who made ground-breaking discoveries about Kirlian photography, the origin of life and the unkown properties of water, such as memory of water, how homeopathy and ESPs work, and so on. I'm affraid those are not even notorious enough among pseudoscientists and don't need debunking, since the only citations that could possibly be found are on Ignatov's webpage and several low-level free hosting websites and are stated in a vague language. Correct me if I'm wrong. −PetaRZ (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, you should ask that question of the community at bg.wiki, as they may have different guidelines. As far as Ignatov's work represented in Kirlian photography here, the content is sourced and properly attributed, so you should not simply remove it. I recommend that you discuss such changes on the article talk page so that others can participate. There have already been lengthy debates on this topic, but I'm sure that your input would be welcome. Also, when you remove content, and someone restores it, that is not vandalism and should not be characterized as such in your edit summaries. - MrX 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I have pointed out the problems on the talk page, did you take a look? Mbreht is clearly aware that they don't have any reliable sources and are promoting their own research. His contributions are unambiguously treated as spam on bg.wiki, once blocked for this, probably because he submitted much more content and it has become clear, what in a larger context, his input means. He also admitted a conflict of interest, stating that he is related to Mr Ignatov. What you call 'discussion' is simply a perseverance in spamming and promoting 'research' that has no significance elsewhere. It's vandalism par excellence, but you are right that maybe I've been too hasty in presenting the case to the en.wiki community and that I should detail more. This is more appropriate for the talk page of the page Kirlian photography. Right now I just would like to point you out that he is not correctly citing the Science paper from 1976: Pehek et al. (1976) do not support any of their dubious claims, they dismiss any supernatural explanation of images from 'Kirlian photographies' and explain this with coronal discharge; moisture and not auras or Qi. The fact that Mbreht is claiming that Pehek et al. refer to 'Kirlian photography' and not to 'coronal discharge' is a simple lie. The other papers are by Mr Ignatov and collaborators (he is a co-author). Please point me out any reliable secondary sources that refer to those papers. Hence, allow me to dismiss your assertion that this content is "sourced". Cheers, −PetaRZ (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you pointed out problems, but you did so in broad generalizations which doesn't really help move us forward. How about taking it sentence-by-sentence, with a refutation of the sources. There is not a large body of study on this subject, and we have tried to present all of the major research. The fact that one scientist in one source article or book discredits the research of another scientist is but a footnote in a larger subject.

While I agree that most of the medical-related claims related to Kirlian photography are pseudo-science, it does not mean that we should completely erase them. We need to remain objective, present verifiable information and let readers draw their own conclusions. For a good prototype see Homeopathy. As far as the specific citation that mention above, I recommend bringing it to the article talk page. - MrX 14:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sreenath bhasi

Added citations to the article Sreenath bhasi. Request to remove the PROD. --atnair (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Best wishes. - MrX 01:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

MrX, I reverted your latest edit at WP:ANEW because of refactoring what you'd done before. Adding clarifications and your comment at the bottom is fine, but don't remove one of the diffs from the list (you could strike it if you wish). It throws off all the subsequent references to the numbers. Try again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not aware that I could not add to the list of diffs that I created. I specifically did not intend to delete anything; it must have been a formatting error. - MrX 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to add new information to the existing list and explain it in a comment, particularly if it supports why something that on its face doesn't appear to be a revert is in fact a revert. Just make sure the numbering remains the same so others won't get lost.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am. Please bear with me as it's not as easy as I make it look. - MrX 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL; nothing is easy, is it? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feneos executions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Liberation Front (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) 11:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Draft - could use your help

Hi mate, you seemed keen to move the available material on heterophobia out of the homophobia article and into its own. There's a Heterophobia draft being put together and I think it's starting to look good. The quicker it becomes "mainspace ready", the quicker it can be merged out of the homophobia article. Feel like weighing in? Stalwart111 06:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was comfortable with the initial draft the TRPoD created, but I will see if I can add anything, or at least comment on the current draft. - MrX 12:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I found this edit to be particularly good-humoured. Nice work! Have a look at my first couple of notes on the talk page - the triple negative of anti-anti-different has been fun. Stalwart111 03:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I think I thought I was back at the homophobia article where people fear that which is the same. (There I go again). - MrX 03:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. My head hurts. Stalwart111 06:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Amartyabag. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, LocateAMERICA.com, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Albert Lexie help

Thanks for your help with the Albert Lexie article. The more references I add the more messier the Wiki code looks. If you are knowledgeable with Wikipedia's citation templates, can you possibly help me? I'd like to place all of the references within those citation templates and I noticed you are familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're doing fine. The behind-the-scenes-code will always look messy. The most important thing is to have good sources; the citation formatting can be fixed later. You can learn everything you ever wanted to know about citation formatting here: WP:CITE. There is also a tool called ProveIt that you can turn on in your user preferences (Preferences > Gadgets > Editing > ProveIt). It places a pop up box on the bottom left of the editing window, so all you have to do is fill in the blanks. It's the tool I use and it formats the citations so they can be read as metadata, which makes for a better long term solution. Please let me know if you have any specific questions that I can answer, or if you get stuck trying to figure out Wiki formatting. Best wishes. - MrX 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping there was some sort of software assist tool you folks were using. I will try out ProveIt this weekend. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jocuri12

Wasn't nonsense - was Romanian. I deleted it as spam and blocked the eponymous author. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I could have sworn I saw random English words mixed in with the Romanian. - MrX 20:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You often get that with foreign things - this was plugging some cartoon site or something like that. When in doubt, drop a chunk into Google (without quotes). Gives a clue to language if it's not something Google Translate has learned. If you get the whole chunk as a chunk, you've got a probable copyvio... Peridon (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A trainstop present for you!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I see you regularly keeping nonsense to a minimum and standing up to the clueless and hate-mongering. I'm not able to contribute as much as I would like so I appreciate that you do what you do! Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cluetrainwoowoo for your thoughtful accolade. It's much appreciated! - MrX 12:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Tucson artifacts

Thanks. If you have the time and interest, take a look at Talk:Bat Creek inscription and the article, and Los Lunas Decalogue Stone - articles such as these get very little attention from non-fringe editors. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I will take a look at the other articles as well. - MrX 14:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion over Covey. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. - MrX 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the fast track to deletion banner. If you still have any problems with the page do tell me. BlockBadger42 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI . . . Sorry I accidentally reverted an edit. As there was an edit afterwards, I left it alone. 72Dino (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Michael Herlache

Hello MrX, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michael Herlache, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Published two influential texts is an assertion of importance sufficient to pass the test for A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, in my haste I did not see the word influential. - MrX 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Naam (band)

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Naam (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having a headlining tour in Europe is an assertion of importance, the article might not survive AFD, but it doesn't merit speedy deletion. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That one did not seem to be a credible claim in my opinion. Having checked a couple of news archives, I didn't find any such headlines (or even articles). - MrX 14:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think its a hoax that would be rather different, though I'd be careful to get the sort of European music sources that would have covered such a trip. However it is credible for such a band to have a headlining European tour, and if they have they are probably notable. Though not if their "headlining European tour" was a few pubs with open mike sessions - hence the difficulty of establishing whether it is a hoax or just unnotable. If they somehow did it without the press noticing then they fail the general notability guideline and the article would merit deletion depite its assertion of importance. But if you've searched for sources as per wp:Before and come up empty handed a prod or AFD with the rationale of "can't find any sources" is usually uncontentious. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's nip this bud before it blooms

I just realized that someone might try to imply that this comment was some sort of PA against you. I'm just clarifying that this was directed towards Homer J. and not yourself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

OK - MrX 17:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hemp, for rope and stuff.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

lol. That's a different kind of bud. - MrX 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tucson artifacts

Copyvio from [3]. I'm arguing that Wolter is not a reliable source elsewhere. He's a fringe geologist - and he seems to always have the same view. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. I watched the H2 program with sheer amusement. - MrX 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Status of Article Entitled Steve Cottle

Hi MrX,

I read your comments at Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle.

I believe I have valuable information pertaining to this topic, but haven't written anything in the Talk sections.

How do I enter my comments?

Drhankh (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Drhankh

Go here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle, click the edit tab. Enter your comments at the bottom, formatting them similarly to the other comments. Don't forget to type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message, which will insert your signature. - MrX 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Specialty pharmacy

Just wanted to give you a heads up that I fixed and contested the copyvio CSD on this, since it's a valid term (or at least a valid redirect). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. - MrX 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

Hello, I noticed that you added the notability template to the article I created on Sudhir Shivaram. I checked the guidelines and I think the person meets the criteria. I thought of creating the page after google suggested I search for "sudhir shivaram wiki" indicating a lot of people searching for him (also, the photographer has more than 50K fans on facebook, not to mention lots of newspaper/media articles in India). I know the google/facebook popularity isn't 'reliable sources' but I wanted to mention it anyway. I'm new to wikipedia, so could you tell me what the process is to establish notability? Does it require an admin review or a community decision? I'd just like to help by adding nationally famous people. Good day! -- Kaadupapa (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You're right—I've removed the tag. I looked at the available sources a little more closely and it does seem that he meets our notability guidelines. The articles in the Hindu, the Indian Express and the Times of India are good sources. You are correct that Facebook is not a reliable source. Happy editing! - MrX 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks. -- Kaadupapa (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Powter 'Lie To Me'

Hi, I am Hugo and I am the author of the 'Lie To Me' article page. Yes it is original research. I searched far on shopping websites to get the right info for the track listings and all as far the information concerned are true. If the video plot is too lengthy you should just let me know and I can try to abridge it (I was watching it while typing it up so I understand why it seems too lengthy). Please don't delete the page, it deserves its place with the other articles on Daniel Powter's singles and has done for a very long time. As a new user, wouldn't it be best to contact and advise me. I had been planning to make new articles for 'Whole World Around' and 'Lose To Win' but now I see they could have ended up in the same position. Just don't delete it unless you make a better version of the article, please. When it came to charting I wasn't sure where to look but thinking about I could have looked at Billboard. I apologise if I need to, I only wanted to give 'Lie To Me' it rightful place on here since no one else had the time or commitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoAlynStephens (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hugo. I recommend that you comment here: Articles for deletion/Lie to Me so that your comments can be considered with others. The issue is one of notability of the song (not the artist or album). If no reliable sources have written about the song, then it does not merit having an article according to our inclusion guidelines (see WP:NSONG). Please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes after each post, like this: ~~~~

- MrX 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Socks

Hey, if you're still handling the Belchfire sockpuppetry issue: 91.121.166.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The SPI has been concluded. I wish to be absolutely clear that I am not on a crusade against Belchfire, in any way, shape, or form. I still have hope that they will reform to become a valued contributor here.

Having said that, I have already reported that proxy-hopping IP here, with no opinion as to who may be hiding behind the proxy. Best wishes - MrX 04:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I'm on no crusade either, but a duck reverting me at an article I'm editing.... Thanks for handling it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

RPP submitted.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

RPP?

Alas, I wish I would have though of that snappy reply yesterday, as I'm sure it would have been much funnier then.

- MrX 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have to explain the joke....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Revolution hasn't gone away yet...

I've declined speedy because the band has an article. How long for, that's probably another matter. I've tagged them A7. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Good one! The band article was created shortly after I CSD tagged the album articles, then I tried to find some sources for the band article, but found none. I guess the revolution isn't looking so good now... - MrX 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Hunt Weekends

Hi MrX I am new at this, and I want to make sure I am doing everything to guidelines. Please let me know what I need to do to keep this neutral and non advertisement sounding. Should I just completely remove the DVD and VIP section? I have made some changes already, can you please direct me, as I am brand new at this. Thank you for your time. Morinchad (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Morinchad. My biggest concern was the lengthy list of events under Ghost Hunt Weekends Past Events. Encyclopedia articles should be concise summaries, usually in prose, as opposed to exhaustive lists. When you add this level of detail to an article, it begins to look promotional (see WP:PROMO. The overall tone of the article is fairly promotional. The goal for our article is for them to be neutral (see WP:NPOV, and written in a dispassionate tone.

The final red flag was the sourcing, which was heavily weighted toward the the company's web site, a blog and several press releases. We require that sources are reliable, have editorial oversight, a reputation for fact checking, and are independent from the subject. Naturally press releases do not qualify (see WP:RS). Overall, articles have to be about notable subjects (others have taken notice, without the need for press releases, etc.) (see WP:N and WP:ORG). I suggest that you edit the article to address these concerns, and add at least 2-3 reliable sources to establish that the subject is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Articles that are not notable, are usually deleted. I hope that helps Let me know if you have any questions. - MrX 04:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I make a List of Ghost Hunt Weekends Past Events page? I have seen that for event companies like UFC for instance. I will get more third party sources no associated with the website itself. Thanks for working with me, I will start in the morning changing everything to better meet the guidelines, thanks again! Morinchad (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, unless you can find a couple of reliable sources that establish that such a list is notable (not the entries on the list, but the list itself). There are many articles with such lists, so don't feel as if you have to remove it solely on my advice. You can leave it and see if another editor removes it, or raises objections on the talk page. - MrX 04:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for your recent handling of a case of attempted drama. You handled it perfectly, and I think your civil behavior is an example for all editors to follow. samrolken (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your words. - MrX 13:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For those who commented at the AfD, a merge discussion has been initiated.

As someone who participated in the AfD for Ethnic penalty you may be interested in joining the merge discussion which was indicated as a next possible step by the closer: Talk:Discrimination#Merge_Ethnic_Penalty.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

TMZ as a source

What is the official Wikipedia stance on using TMZ as a cited source for biographical articles? I can't believe I even have to ask, but I'm finding tons of biographies citing TMZ and I'm really shocked and not sure what to do about it. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends. TMZ does a lot of celeberty fluff of course, but they do investigative journalism from time to time. They do have teams of lawyers making sure they aren't liable for some of their stories, so they probably do an adequate job of fact checking, or covering their ass depending upon your POV.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would concur with that. It depends, and it's always best to have corroborating sources for potentially controversial material in biographies of living persons. - MrX 04:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm kind of shocked TMZ is accepted here. Having a staff of lawyers to defend you against libel is hardly a high standard for journalism! Is there a historical discussion about this? I'm sure The Daily Mirror has a fully staffed legal team as well, does that mean they're allowed as a source too? DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocks

I've put in a request for the anon isp to be blocked. There's a reasonable suspicion that the isp is a sock. If you want to avoid the suspicion that it's your sock, I suggest you restrict yourself to the ongoing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. PiCo (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion might have some influence if you weren't edit warring at this article and tendentiously editing at others. Notably, I haven't even edited the article in 12 days, whereas you have made four reverts in the past two days. At this point, your edits are clearly against consensus as well. - MrX 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a most amazing statement. Your edits ave been consistently against consensus and you've refused to compromise on your preferred approach. I think it would be prudent for each of us to stop leaving messages on each others Talk pages. PiCo (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Leviticus, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. You have continued to add material without reliable sources despite unanimous rejection by a number of other editors on the Talk page of the article and despite having this explained to you by various editors, including myself. I must ask you to stop this disruptive behaviour. PiCo (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh?! "If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content" The last edit I made here was 11 days ago and I added content, I didn't remove it. Perhaps you would clarify why you posted this template. Also, which sources are you claiming are not reliable? The bible? - MrX 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think everybody should read the essay WP:Don't template the regulars. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking

Hi, and thanks for your good work on the English Wikipedia!

Please note that dates, years, and common terms are not normally linked in articles. You'll find more here on this; please ask me if you need any advice, specifically on this point, or more generally.

Cheers, Tony (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very aware of the guideline. Can you please point out where I have done this? - MrX 13:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I've probably clicked the wrong username in a page history. I'm so sorry! I'll check it out. Tony (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it might be something like that. I'll survive. - MrX 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Open proxy reports

Please preview your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests before saving them. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a dolt. - MrX

It's Ok, we all are :-) Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

homosexual agenda

The purpose of my edits on the homosexual agenda page were to conform to Wiki's NPOV rules. The way they were originally presented was a clear violation. I am insulted that a moderator would choose to blatantly violate those rules by deleting my edits and returning the text to a non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.123.202 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit and your proposition that the article was a clear violation of NPOV, especially when you replace phrases like "advocacy of cultural acceptance" with "forcible cultural acceptance". In any case, let's discuss it on the article talk page with other editors and seek a version that actually complies with our policies, and represent the subject in a neutral fashion.

Also, I'm not a moderator; I'm just an editor like you. Please don't be insulted by an edit. This is a collaborative editing environment, so material is constantly added and deleted in order to improve the encyclopedia. - MrX 18:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you have a history of guarding biased material in this issue. Please cease from doing so. Your reverting the Family Research Institute page to it's highly biased previous condition is absurd. Please check your agenda at the door.Yeoberry (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Family Research Institute

I put verified, referenced material that tried to bring balance into what was before a highly biased article. You may remove material that is not referenced, etc., but please don't do so because it doesn't fit a certain agenda, as that article clearly had an agenda, taking sides with conclusions like "discredited", etc.Yeoberry (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss it on the article talk page, so that other editors can participate. - MrX 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Question at Talk:Family Research Institute

Hi MrX, my question may have been lost in the shuffle at Talk:Family Research Institute. It was simply "is this the Church & State publication being cited? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. - MrX 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, Mr. X! As a side note, you may want to examine this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AzureCitizen, I'll have a look. - MrX 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

History of Ikot Ekpong Village

Hi, kindly have a review on the above article. It a small village that may loose history and identity if the information we've gathered in the last few years is not preserved.

Thanks

Edoxicon (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edoxicon. I think the article looks like a good start, and if all of the content can be linked to the sources that you added, then the article can be published to the main space. I am wondering about the name. Should it be Ikot Ukpong, or is that a different village?

You can see how a similar article has been written here: Ikot Ekpene. Let me know if you need further help. - MrX 13:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr X for your reply. The name Ikot Ekpong is very different from Ikot Ukpong. The former is in Essien Udim Local Government Area while the later is in Ikot Ekpene Local Government Area. Frankly, a lot of the information can be linked to the sited references while others were got from interview from very elderly persons in the community. We took some good time to verify and correlate the information contained in the article. Is there a method that some of the verbal sources can be referenced?

Thank you

Edoxicon (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, verbal sources usually can't be used directly as reliable sources. We require published sources. WP:PUS and WP:PUS#Personal communication explain it better than I can. It is best to rely on books, magazines, newspapers and journals as sources. Sometimes web site can be used, provided that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Likewise, videos interviews can be used, if the interview is conducted by a reputable journalist, historian, etc. - MrX 21:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong.

Mr. X I am Prof. Alan Peters. I have been teaching a class in digital image processing to EE and CS students at Vanderbilt University for the past 14 years. Digital Image processing has _everything_ to do with digital photography. That, combined with the optics of cameras IS the very definition of digital photography! Of course my contribution is appropriate for an encyclopedia. What gives you the right to summarily delete my contribution to this page? Leave it alone! Lamoid (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The published policy states: "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." That is precisely what the lectures on the internet archive are. Lamoid (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hello MrX. You recently reviewed my first article (mailsite). Thank you for your feedback and for removing the flag. I am very excited to participate in the Wikipedia community by creating additional content for our collective encyclopedia. I see that a few other users have already edited this page. Nice! Thank you again. Dargyle (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia! - MrX 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

EDGE Development Option page

Hi Mr.X, I see you added the EDGE Development Option page among those to be considered for deletion. I added some links and would like to know what information you would like to be added to have the page kept. Please, be aware that the Autometric page was already pointing to an EDGE development option page, but it was blank, I simply created the page to fill the missing information. Let me know how I can help make the page better. Thank you. Jerappelle (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Jerappelle

Hi Jerappelle. Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Unfortunately, the references that you added are PRIMARY sources and not sufficient for establishing notability (see Notability, WP:Identifying reliable sources and Citing sources for the guidelines). All of the source are from Boeing, and are mostly press releases. Notability requires that reliable sources, independent of the subject have taken note and written about the subject. What we usually want for sources are newspapers, magazines, books or news web sites. Best wishes - MrX 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Mr.X. Let me search for those and will get back to you. Best, Jerappelle (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please check our page again

If I had known that the lack of links would flag this article so soon, i would have added them from the beginning. Anyway, I added new links and citations to Lindsay G Merrithew. Can you check it out and see if it prevents it from being deleted now? or is there anything else you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNAwesome (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The citation seem to support that the subject was involved with STOTT pilates, but doesn't support the content about his acting career, personal life and most of the awards. I would recommend cutting out everything that does not have an inline citation from a good, third party source; removing all links and references to self-published sources (IMDB, LinkedIn, etc.); and toning down the language so that it is informative without being promotional. Then, you should add your comments to the AfD after reading WP:GD. Best wishes - MrX 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again. I've tried to follow your recommendations as best as I can. I'm still waiting for copyright information for the picture (which I know is available), and I hope to have a citation for the 35,000 trainers, soon. I want to get this right and not upset anybody, but it's a little tough on one's first attempt at a page. Could you give the revised page a once-over before I submit it to the AfD? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastNAwesome (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely an improvement. Your arguments in AfD will be bolstered by presenting 2-3 strong, independent sources. You can read WP:RS to get a better idea of what are considered good sources. Don't forget to sign you talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~ which will automagically turn into your name,date and time, when you save your edit. - MrX 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and encouragement. From what I can tell, the sources are good with respect to WP:RS, given that this is not a scholastic WP entry. I'll send a note to the AfD, to see what they say about whether the changes are sufficient. Thanks for the note about signing my edits. :-) FastNAwesome (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Profile Luao Luka

im making a profile for Luao Luka as he will need his own profile for the upcoming events in the next SPG so im just getting his profile started untill he gets to the games and more things will be added.. but please give me feed backs on how i can make articles that will not get deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwayz (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My best advice would be for you to first read the linked articles in the welcome message on your talk page here User talk:Lwayz. There'z a lot of very good information there that will explain how Wikipedia works, how to create a biographical article and how to find and add good references. If this player is notable, there will be articles about him in newspapers, magazines, books and news web sites (for example, ESPN.com). I have tried finding reliable sources myself, but I was unsuccessful. You may have better results.

After reading the tutorials, feel free to ask any questions and I will do what I can to help you. Don't forget to sign you talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~ which will add your name, date and time to your post when you save your edit.- MrX 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion of Camp Agawam

MrX, I would like to contest the nomination for speedy deletion that you submitted for the article Camp Agawam. I started the page recently and haven't had time to grow the page yet enough to make it notable. Could you revert the nomination please? Sincerely, Mfribbs (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't. The article still doesn't explain why the subject is significant and there are no references at all. It's published in the live article space so billions of people can view it. I recommend that you create the article in your user sandbox, taking your time to research the subject and write it from an encyclopedic perspective and then when you have it more fleshed out with some references, you can publish it. The links in the welcome message on your user talk page will take you to help tutorials to get you started. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. Best wishes - MrX 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Mfribbs (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How would you say the page looks now? Camp Agawam Would you like to revert the nomination? Mfribbs (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

An Editor is "out of office"

Hello MrX. I greatly appreciate your feedback on this issue - after you removed the CSD on the article entitled "mailsite". I received another message from another editor (JamesBWatson) with concerns that the article is a compromise of NPOV. I have posted on his talk page, and now see that he will not be editing Wikipedia until at least March 22nd. Can I edit the article and remove the COI from it? I have explained in length that I am excited to publish the results of my own research comparing mail server software. The article is balanced and uses a neutral tone and language. Thank you very much for your time in looking into this. Dargyle (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dargyle. Yes, you have responded to the editor who placed the tag and you're not required to wait until he returns from a break to edit the article. If he has further concerns, I'm sure he will respond to your talk page post or open a discussion on the article talk page. BEBOLD. - MrX 00:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. I will move forward. Thank you. Dargyle (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Foster

I had an extraordinary amount of AGF hit me and thought about userfying this on the grounds of being a newbie accidentally putting his user page in article space. Then I saw this and changed my mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a feeling that the article was being set up as a attack article. And now it's gone! - MrX 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference to your accusation that I am advertising

I am certainly not advertising and don't know why you would suggest that. There is solid scientific evidence that krill is more potent than fish oil and less apt to oxidize, which is cited in the link. It is sold at many places, and the link I placed is not a link to a store, nor did I recommend a certain brand of product. Biraalo (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits here at Krill Oil, a similar one here at Light therapy, and here at Antibiotic resistance all leading to http://mercola.com, a commercial web site that is frequently spammed on Wikipedia, led me to the conclusion that you may be attempting to promote that web site. In any case, all of these links are inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia according to our guidelines at WP:ELNO. The welcome message on your talk page stated that this seems to be advertising—it was not an outright accusation. The intention was to guide you toward being a good contributor. Cheers - MrX 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the repeated links to various mercola webpages appears to be promotion or linkspam. The information can be presented to the reader in other ways than linking to a commercial website. For instance, blue light therapy can be supported by this article in the Texas Journal of Chiropractic, "Light Therapy Shows Promise for Burn Wound Infections", or by this article at MedicineNet: "Blue Light Kills MRSA". Krill oil may be supported by this webpage, "Krill Oil", from NYU Langone Medical Center. Medical topics are especially worrisome to Wikipedia as we must watch out for the health of our readers. The guideline for reliable sources in health and medical topics is WP:MEDRS. It generally represents that scientific studies are to be used, not webpages written by a single person such as Dr. Joseph Mercola who has in any event been criticized for his marketing tactics. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions.

I can certainly link to the original research instead of Mercola.com. I am an avid reader of his newsletters and simply used that site as a source for all three or so edits, but I was not trying to sell anything to anyone, just provide information. I am a nurse practitioner, so I know the importance if researched-based information, which Mercola's IS, and he's one of the few who references the original studies, as well as presenting the information in a way that a lay people can understand, usually a pretty good synopsis. So, I will refrain from using his site if it will cause a problem. I see references all the time on Wikipedia that have far less cred than his!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biraalo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TESLA: Birthplace & Hungarian citizenship

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Birthplace_.26_Hungarian_citizenship

Tesla was not Autro-Hungarian citizen, he was born in Smiljan, at the time Kingdom of Hungary.

The division was so marked between the countries that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenships. The difference in citizenship also meant that, there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.

I believe, according to our sources, Smiljan was part the sovereign state known as the Austrian Empire. This quote from the Austrian Empire article is instructive: "The Austrian Empire... was a modern era successor empire centered on what is today's Austria and which officially lasted from 1804 to 1867. It was followed by the Empire of Austria-Hungary,..." - MrX 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)--Jadckers (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But this didn't change the fact that: Tesla hadn't Austrian Passport or Austrian citizenship. He had Hungarian citizenship and Hungarian passport

There is a difference between country, kingdom, empire, provisional territory, etc. Also, the geopolitical state of this region was in flux at the time. His passport (if you can provide references) would be one element of determining his citizenship at the time it was issues, but there may be other considerations, for which we rely on Tesla's biographers. In any case, consensus about Tesla's citizenship was establish quite some time ago for this article. If you have new sources to present that challenge the consensus, then please present them on the article talk page so that others can participate. - MrX 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First: These so-called "biographers" are not legal-historians, who can understand the legal stance of countries, they are not experts on that field. Second: Hungary had own customs borders, own passport and own citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-hungary

The division was so marked between Austria and Hungary that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenship.[11][12][clarification needed] The difference in citizenship also meant tha there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.[13][14]

The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary have always maintained separate parliaments. (See: Imperial Council (Austria) and Diet of Hungary.) Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws have never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. All laws, even the ones with identical content such as the compromise of 1867, had to pass the parliaments of both Vienna and Budapest.

Despite the fact that Austria and Hungary shared a common currency they were fiscally sovereign and independent entities.[15] From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851 the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated her from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.[16] Since 1867 the Austrian and Hungarian customs union agreement had to be renegotiated and stipulated every ten years. The agreements were renewed and signed by Vienna and Budapest at the end of every decade because both countries hoped to derive mutual economic benefit by the customs union.

Austrians were always treated as foreign people and citizens by the Hungarian legal system and laws in Kingdom of Hungary. (and vica-versa)--84.1.180.253 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth certificate states "Kraljevina Mađarskoj" (Kingdom of Hungary)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.180.253 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (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.

Bink

I imagine this RfA is stressful for you as well. Bink is a fine editor, but obviously I have a few issues. I was torn about opposing, especially after I said I wouldn't object. A few of the questions and responses (or lack of responses) made me realize my complaints aren't isolated. The only reason I went to "oppose" instead of neutral is that handing the bit out would IMO validate certain behavior. If this RfA fails, I would hope he starts acting like an admin without the bit and be ready again to try in a few months. I hope this hasn't left a sour taste in your mouth and will prevent you trying for a go. Anyways, I just wanted to say I feel for both of you for going through the grinder.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not stressful for me at all, but it certainly is a revealing experience. I actually wasn't surprised that you !voted to oppose Bink's RfA, but I was surprised when you said you wouldn't oppose it when we first discussed it on his talk page several days ago. In any case, I respect most everyone's comments and !votes, although I would like to see the RfA process overhauled.

As for myself, I have no aspirations whatsoever to become an admin. Perhaps I will just skip a level and run for one of the newly vacated arbcom seats, unless there's a putsch first. - MrX 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

reverting article

Hey Mr. X. I am new here but Wiki is for all they say. i tried editing in a neutral manner. I agree you reverted the article because accidentally I suppose created some blocks or whatever. Can you at least have a look at what I did and use what you think is good. It helps the time line considerably. I thank you already and from now on will first use the sand box. Justin1719 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Thank you for helping to improve the Clan of Xymox article. My concern was that you copied material from http://www.clanofxymox.com/bio.html which is strictly forbidden by our copyright policies. You are able to go back to the article history to find material that you wrote yourself and that has references. That material can be added back into the article. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to do it myself, as I would be inclined to check each source and it would become a project unto itself. Best wishes - MrX 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked and altered some. The source is reliable and sums up the missing info and time line hiatus left here for a long time. It's a shame this page "rattles" so much as it does at the moment. I hope this was of some help. 80.153.127.28 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw. Thanks for the help. As long as copyrighted material doesn't make its way into the article, all is good. Someday I will make an effort to try to improve the article, as this is band that I'm quite fond of. - MrX 17:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Q

What would be the follow-up on this [4]? Thank you. --Scientiom (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the user is a sockpuppet, you can report it to WP:SPI. I haven't pursued it, because I don't believe that the evidence is quite strong enough. - MrX 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You were right, it was AM. I'm thinking about making a sock-bot to catch habitual defenders.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his editing patterns are pretty obvious. By now, he has already created a new account and is making some innocuous edits to game articles and Star Wars related articles. In 2-3 weeks we will see a relatively new user pop up at Ex gay, Oprah Winfrey, Same Sex Marriage or Rush Limbaugh with an uncanny, albeit rote, understanding of WP:NPOV and MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I do see that there is a ban proposal on the table, for all the good it will do. Good luck with the sock bot. We need it. - MrX 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I must be getting rusty. It looks like I was off by a few hours. - MrX 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets see if something good can come of this. At least he is talking, which is a good first step. Those that edit and avoid discussing are more troublesome. Speaking of which, Scientiom is headed down the same path as AM. Short of source abuse by AM (so someone else claims, I haven't examined it myself) they are two peas in a different POV pod.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer }

I'm open to any possibility, but I don't have much faith in AM reforming. His perception of why he was blocked (several times) seems very distorted. Either he doesn't understand why he was blocked, or is so willful that he refuses to accept it. His talk page history and some previous ANI discussions that he participated in convey a novel interpretation of our policies, and a sense of entitlement, in my opinion.

As far as concerns Scientiom's editing, I'm not familiar enough to render a much of a comment at the moment. All I know is that there was some edit warring over quotation marks, and little productive discussion to try to resolve the dispute. I have no idea how something so trivial can spawn such a drama fest. - MrX 04:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was just me, so I let it go. Turns out several other editors have the same beef. The problem is that while Scientiom may let the issue go for a particular article, he won't acknowledge the problem (in this case quotes) and then do it again later at another article in service of POV. It's a big F.U. to the community.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated list of "active anti-gay groups" on the page "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups in the section "Anti-LGBT"

I was adding groups from the recently updated list from the SPLC. The newer groups were not added on yet.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups

Sorry for the confusion. This was my first major edit to a page. I thought the list was cited else where in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.91.162 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. We appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. I left more detailed message on your talk page. By convention, we add the SPLC designated hate groups to the main article first (List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups) with solid references, and then add each summary listing to the article that you had edited. Although the URL that you posted (above) contains contains the words "active-hate-groups", I don't see any other reference to hate groups in the source itself. This leaves me uncertain as to what their status actually is.

This is a very sensitive topic, so a number of editors watch these articles to ensure accuracy and sourcing. It may be a good idea to start a discussion on the article talk page so we can see what other editors think about these groups. - MrX 04:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.91.162 (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New section

Hi MrX:

Thank you for the comment regarding the edit on Same-sex Marriage. You had mentioned that there were no citations, but I did post citations to the content of the article (and just clicked on the link to make sure it was going to the right place). The entire study is cited at the link, as well as an abstract of the study. Because the study became very well known, there are many places to find references to it -- I only posted one. The information in the current Wikipedia article on the subject is incorrect and needs to be updated.

Theanswerman109 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone has started a discussion on the article talk page so let's discuss it there. - MrX 19:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sniping/posting new articles

Hi! First-time Wikipedia author here. As recommended in the author instructions, I created a page BenediktSch/Retrode as a subpage of my own, in order to have some sort of a sandbox area before publishing the page in the regular Wikipedia space. 7 minutes after its creation, you moved that subpage over to Retrode. Why? --BenediktSch (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Should I have used User:BenediktSch/Retrode? --BenediktSch (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Welcome to Wikipedia! - MrX 17:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

AN refactor

Hi.

Re [5]

Sorry but no, I wasn't re-factoring it. In fact, I was undoing a previous re-factor. If you note my edit summary in [6] and the link I gave there to [7], I hope you can see that I was undoing a previous refactor so that the title remained as it originally was.

I undid your edit [8], I hope that's OK.

Best, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I apologize for stepping on toes. I should have read your previous edit summary more carefully. Best wishes. - MrX 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Brandenburg stone

Many apologise but I'm not convinced this is notable. Pennington is a poet and fringe film maker. Found this in 2006: Since 1990, he and his wife, Joy, thorough Jole Productions their video production company, have produced 17 documentaries including In Search of the Mudmen (1990), Wales: History in Bondage (1995), and Secret of the Stones (1998), Eyes that Look at the Sky: The Mystery of Easter Island (2001), The Mound Builders (2001), The Serpent Fort: Solving the Mystery of Fort Mountain, Georgia (2005). They are presently working on a documentary called Seafaring Strangers: Vikings in America. See also [9]. He was a professor of English at Jefferson Community and Technical College, which is a 2 year college.

As for Baram (correct spelling) Blackett and Alan Wilson they aren't much better. There is no Welsh language Coelbren, Wilson did not discover the Ark of the Covenant dispite his claims[10]. See also [11].

They aren't historians but self-published amateurs - they were BNP candidates once though.[12]. See also [13], and on their archeology, [14] and [15].

Now if you want the page to remain, we may have to disagree and go to AfD. If you don't, you can request deletion and let me know. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion category G7, {{db-author}} Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good case of verifiability, not truth. As absurd as it would be to think that this artifact is authentic, or that the junior college "historian" has a clue, there is a history to be written about. Of course I am aware that Coelbren is a made up language (I just had not yet copy edited that sentence and was following one of the sources.) The H2 (cue thunderous laughter) coverage, relatively broad in it's reach, was what convinced me that the subject meets the threshold of inclusion.

Certainly, this doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, but I would willing to debate it at AfD as I believe that this story is one of many similar pre-Columbian contact fringe theories that seem to be experiencing some popularity right now. - MrX 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whether or not the stone is authentic is irrelevant. The fact that sources are talking about a stone found over 100 years ago is relevant.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It boils down to notability as well as sources. There's loads of stuff 100 years ago that might be discussed somewhere that isn't notable. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

re Brandenburg stone

I completely missed Colavito's background; don't know how I did that. I think you're probably right and will likely withdraw the nomination tomorrow if I don't get any support. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't clear to me either when I first happened upon his blog post about the stone, but it does seem that he has some credibility in this realm. - MrX 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (re: Delsort tool)

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may view it as such

But it is a hate and propaganda group. I just wanted to see how long it would take you to remove it. SPLC provides no beneficial information but labels anyone that disagrees with the government as racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.148.217 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

in case it is the same editor...

you may track them down though my recent contributions. I just don't want to start a lunch mob running. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is. I don't want to start a mob either. My preference is that an admin with experience with reviewer rights quietly revoke this user's reviewer bit, much like they do when roll back rights are misused. Perhaps Okeyes will have some additional insight. - MrX 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I had that feeling. I've been looking at their edits. I judge many of them as pure vandalism, based on some strange sort of ignorance. I've stopped short of reporting for vandalism, but have built up the necessary four warnings. They are misusing every available tool, by the look if it. (hahahah 'lunch mob'! my excuse is that I was eating mine!) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good one

From WP:RG: "Reviewer rights are granted by administrators; and in cases of misuse of the right or to protect Wikipedia from possible misuse, the rights can be removed by an administrator after a community discussion has taken place" I think the logical next step is to open a discussion at WP:ANI. I can't do it myself right now because I'm leaving for a few hours, but if it hasn't been addressed by the time I get back, I will open a discussion. - MrX 15:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I considered ANI, but this editor, while doing good work, does a huge amount of poor work, some of which is a negative benefit. And they do it with all sorts of tool, judging from their contributions record. I think reviewer (etc) rights may be the tip of the iceberg. It's possible that my vandalism warnings may make them think, and I'll consider ANI before you get back, too. Never done it before, so I may not have achieved it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_curation_reviewer_rights Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To Mr X respond to your pro-deletion comment

I have red your pro-deletion comment to my article about Mundo (the hun). It was not meaned as a hoax. Looking myself for further information on Mundo I have registered yesterday by night that there exists only the simple noun Mundo in Wikipedia, but nothing more. So I decided spontaniously to share the few details I know by reading here and there. I`m relatively new in the internet, so I can make technically mistakes. I`m a foreigner (not from U. K.) and English isn`t my mother tongue, so my grammar may be awful. But be it as it be, everyone can correct my mistakes. So I sat there and wrote last night and saved my writings to make a pause for some necessary refreshments. And when I got in again, my unfinished writings had been smashed out by Mister administrator. I`m of the opinion that a writer generally should have the right to finish his work and then the critics could come and like it or destroy his elaborate. Is it always the case, that you were stopped in between when you are just formulating an article at Wikipedia ??? I thought to get something done a disputatio with thesis and antithesis is far more usefull than a wild standby discussion. I have some problems because a lot of my reference books are not in English or old editions, so giving a page- or line-number may not be helpful. On the other hand a chapter in Eugippius for example has in most cases five to twenty lines,so the administrator must have find the words he looked for if he had taken himself some time. I had a lot more informations about the Mundos. Plural!, because there were at minimum three of them in the history books. Grandfather, father and son and they all together played an important role in the fights for Italy between the different powers (Scires, Goths, Gepids, Byzantines and Langobards). So the elder Mundo helped the side of Theoderic, but his son and grandson got payed by the other party and helped Constantinople to destroy the Gothic kingdom just like the langobardic and gepidic warriors Narses had rented, too. The Mundos: Their men were called indeed scaramuzes in different bowdlerizes and they owned realy a fortress called Hertha after one of the names of goddess of death, transcendance or, if you like, the chtonic underworld. A fortress at the Morawa estuary (now Serbia) and some Land around, as you can read also in serious books of reknown academics. Many people have listened to the french Opera-Scaramouche of the baroque aera and never asked from where does this figure come. Others know it, know from the commedia dell`arte from Northern Italy, from Lombardia, the Bergamo region. The Scaramuzzo is used also in the puppet-theatre there and he is an old folklore-figure since the early middle-ages and then before rented soldiers in the italian feuds were called Scaramuzzo, a langobardic word (!!!), not derived from old Italian or the vulgary latin. And if you now have read like in my case here and there, for example in Rodenberg or Wolfram about those not rearly nice guys, the fellows called Scaramucae or Scaramuzes things began to add in your brain and history looks a little different. So I let it as it may be. With best wishes, Volant Federlin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Volant Federlin (talk • contribs) 12:35, March 29, 2013

Hi Volant Federlin. I'm sorry your article was deleted. It was because no one could find any information about the subject, among the billions and billions of pages that Google has indexed, or the 100,000+ books that many of us have access to. Unfortunately, if you choose to build an article in the live, published area of Wikipedia, it does have the risk of being deleted if the subject can not be verified. Fortunately, we have mechanisms in place that allow you to build an article at your own pace in your user area, and then have it reviewed by more experienced editors before it is published to the live article area. I have included some very helpful links in the welcome message that I left on your user page. These will help you understand Wikipedia's policies, and how to edit and create articles. After reading some of the help tutorials, feel free to ask me, or anyone else, for help if you need it. Best wishes. - MrX 17:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To Mr. X

Thank you for your kind offer of help. I enjoy it more to look in my 8000 books for information than take a try on Google, Bing or Yahoo. But I have just made myself a look in google. If you search only for Mundo you get a lot of other stuff, but if you go on an advanced search with the nouns Mundo Goths history you get a lot. So in google books (books.google.co.uk.books/isbn= 0520069338 you get for example: Wolfram, Herwig & Dunlop, Thomas S.: History of the Goths, pages 322, 341, 351/2 and in the glossar you find these literature-advice: "On the scaramae, his followers, see Wolfram, "Ethnogenese", 115 n.82 further Jordanes, Getica 300f Pohl, Gepiden , 290 f and 292 f Martindale, Prosopography 2; 767 f and about the third, the younger Mundo you hear on page 352 otherwise you find Ensslin, Wilhelm. "Mundo". RE 31: 553 f 1933

There were in total 144.000 findings at my advanced request and I have just overflown three sides with Mundo. I write this only to show you, that I haven`d it trumped up. I know you have other interests and I will not longer bother you. I had searched for Mundo only because I wrote for an other info-page a history of the Bajuvarian tribe and his genesis out of smaller tribal entities, I tried to identify. And thereby I tripped again over the Scaramae and the Mundos. I will for now return to my Bavarians and maybe later try again with the Mundos in Wikipedia. So long, Volant Federlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volant Federlin (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

peerScholar

I think you're mistaken wrt notability guideline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeerScholar. The "sources" in the article don't establish notability, nor does a quoted press-release. Colin°^Talk 23:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I will take a closer look at the sources and discuss any further thoughts at the deletion discussion. - MrX 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm giving it back

		The LGBT Barnstar
		Well deserved in the first place.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you LGR! I will humbly accept it from an editor that I respect, such as yourself. - MrX 16:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Battleground

If you come across anyone rapidly creating loads of obscure battles and wars, it'll be a sock of User:Polllilur (note spelling - 3 ls ...). He's also been Seringapatam and one or two more. Seems determined, and won't do much answering. A lot of it is hoax or so obscure that it's very hard to prove. I've blocked twice, Basalisk at least once. If you suspect, give us a yell. Peridon (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will keep a lookout for any new socks. - MrX 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)