User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2013

Mentioned at ANI

You have been mentioned at ANI in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loomspicker ANI

Let's move on before someone's feelings get hurt. - Mr X 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This was archived nearly a week ago, if you want to re-open then I suggest you start a new thread with a link to the old discussion. regards, Giant Snowman 12:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or you could have easily let it be. Your revert was completely fatuous. - Mr X 12:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The discussion ended naturally. If you feel there is an issue that needs resolving then raise it a-fresh. Giant Snowman 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful.

It never fails to ~~amaze~~ amuse me at how quickly some admins will take action on trivial, bureaucratic processes, or opine in the high drama fests, but will absolutely sit on their giant asses and ignore serious issues that impact the integrity of our content. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. - Mr X 13:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Put your toys back in your parm - I have tried to help you. Giant Snowman 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Fight Forgery"

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit#03 November 2013. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Joy. - Mr X 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Population

Discussion moved to Talk:Orlando, Florida#Orlando Population. - Mr X 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm going to do my absolute utmost to be as crystal clear on this as I'm not limited in character usage here. Bear with me as I don't know Wikipedia's coding, terminology, culture, whatever. I didn't even know there was a talk feature until just now.

The original Orlando article claimed Orlando's metropolitan population was 26th in the US. That statistic linked to (and still links to) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas. Go ahead and click the link and see where Orlando is. It's 20th - not 26th. So the article says it's 26 and provides a reference in support of that contention - except that reference does not support it. I didn't cite a new reference because there IS NO NEW REFERENCE. It's the same reference as before, only correctly stated on Orlando's wiki.

You provided a competing citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Core_Based_Statistical_Areas#United_States. First, that citation does not apply to METROPOLITAN areas, as stated in Orlando's wiki. Your citation applies to CBSAs, it's not the same as a metro area. You're comparing apples to oranges. Second, that was never the cited reference in the article.

Click the links and look for yourself. This is one giant pain in the neck to correct a minor mistake and Wikipedia's interface is incredibly confusing and convoluted for a new user. I won't even bother next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.167.196 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your edit. The link to the list of "metropolitan areas" does include Orlando as the 20th largest, however it's misleading because it includes several counties (Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Volusia and Lake). If you look at this:

Greater Orlando, commonly referred to as the Orlando metropolitan area, Metro Orlando, and for U.S. Census purposes as the Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, is a metropolitan area in the central region of the U.S. state of Florida.

So, I believe this is a case of the term linking to the wrong article (which I will correct). If you still believe that I am wrong, then I would welcome your explanation of why Ormond Beach and The Villages should be included in the Orlando Metropolitan area given their distance from Orlando proper and the fact that they are not contiguous communities. Let's continue the discussion on the article talk page. - Mr X 01:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Masculinity Hard and Soft

Hey I made edits to the page that recently got deleted. I only posted it on the talk page would you be able to take a look at it and let me know if it looks good to post it on the article? Thank you for your help. I am doing this for a school project in Gender studies.Cjbristow (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help you, but first, will you please assure me that you wrote all of it in your own words?

I have moved the article to a sandbox in your user space here: User:Cjbristow/Masculinity hard and soft. - Mr X 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did rewrite what I read in my own words the only thing that I didn't change was the definition of masculinity which is the first two sentences of this article. I am more than happy to send you the parts of the recourses that I had used to create this article. Cjbristow (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This contribution looks great, why isn't it being considered? Natjolly (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)natjollyNatjolly (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this

Hi again, an editor with a COI has asked me to review a draft for the Yale World Fellows Program. I've already done that and replied on the user's talk page here. Aside from the obvious minor corrections (which I'll fix when it's on the mainspace), content seems fine but majority of the sources (are affiliated to Yale itself)—I'm not sure are acceptable, is it okay to go? Here is the draft. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ugog Nizdast. It's an improvement over the current published version. The subject seems to be weak on notability, and you are correct that the sourcing is less than ideal. The promotional language should be trimmed. Primary (affiliated) sources are OK, as long as they are purely factual, and presented with WP:DUE proportion to the rest of the content. I see no reason that the draft can not be used to replace the current article content. I will watchlist it and try to trim some of the promotional verbiage myself, after the draft is added. - Mr X 13:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Aminomethyl propanol

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aminomethyl propanol, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Half the page content (the infobox) was added by another editor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested proposed deletion

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Rachael Ancheril, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! It looked like she could pass WP:ENT. I added IMDB in addition to the sources from ABC and her professional website. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! - Mr X 19:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder about defenders of insults

My wondering leads me to ponder the alleged wisdom of crowds. I wonder at those who absolutely strive to keep WP:Fag or create WP:FAG. It would be interesting were it possible to discover their own sexual orientations and their attitude to homosexual gentlemen in real life. I have no idea if there would be any statistical correlation. I imagine there would be some pristine hogs, though. I have a feeling that http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/0/8/5/4/4/webimg/583128074_tp.jpg applies here. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder the same things. I'm not sure I really want to know what motivates some of these folks, but it's not hard to guess given their heroic efforts to save WP:Fag from the dust bin of shameful redirects. I never considered that type of hog wash, but it makes a lot of sense. - Mr X 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Fag and QUEER in the discussions is interesting. It seems that we love to call people Fag and we don;t mind one way or the other about queer. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. We should just put these

Like

Dislike on the RfD and not even bother with policy-based reasoning. - Mr X 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of those well denied facts that Wikipedia is a great place for the bully to ply his or her trade. It is not, of course, real life here. And the Wisdom of Crowds often equates to lunch law, where, or course, the victim is eaten for lunch. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Koopmanschap

There is a good argument that she meets WP:POLITICIAN. Please send this issue to WP:AfD if you disagree. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that may be true. I was guided by no inherited notability and no claim of significance (although the latter is debatable). I was going to suggest that you might want to un-CSD the other nearly identical one line BLPs but it seems as if they have already been deleted by other admins:

Marc Cools: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified CHRISTENSENMR (talk · contribs) 16:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emilio Verrengia: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified CHRISTENSENMR (talk · contribs) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaye Doğanoğlu: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified CHRISTENSENMR (talk · contribs) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Warmisham: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified CHRISTENSENMR (talk · contribs) 17:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Mr X 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-curated a page you unreviewed

Hi, MrX. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you unreviewed, Aleksander Schwarz, and have re-reviewed it again. The reason is that it already had a maintenance tag, and, as such, no longer needs to be listed for new page curation. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. - - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The reason that I unreviewed it was so that it would remain visible to other reviewers. I do this occasionally in cases where the material seems dubious, spammy, or of questionable notabilty. Although there are reviewers that believe that once an article is tagged it should be considered reviewed, I sometimes take an IAR approach when is seems prudent to do so. - Mr X 20:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Kavi Pt. Lakhmi Chand

Your BLPProd tagging seems a bit hasty to me. About 4 minutes after article creation. That's about as long as it took me to find and fix the link for the Shakespeare quote. I just searched the referenced periodical for the subject. Apparently, the article creator also added a link. Dloh cierekim 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working both the front and the back of the queue (in separate tabs) and, in this case, I thought it was one of the new articles from early October. I will trout myself accordingly.

- Mr X 16:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroacoustic Therapy

Mr X, I saw your comment... I am trying to post text from my website - definition for vibroacoustic therapy and vibroacoustic stimulation... no copyright issues because cyrox.ca is my site... why are you deleting it? do we need sources and references to post an article... Linuxtroll (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to read your talk page where it is all explained. Read it carefully, including the linked policies, and then let me know if you have other questions or need help. Good luck. - Mr X 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted

(sounds like a Dalmatian...) Fils. I don't think it's meat - there's something in the writing that tells me it's him himself - or her herself...). I've blocked them and commented at the SPI. And I've tipped off Malik who deleted their other article. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peridon. I appreciate your help as well as your humor. - Mr X 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi, I just added all the sources regarding the map. It has actually already been published by a European newspaper, OneEurope. It is a well-known journal that could be considered authoritative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aless2899 (talk • contribs)

OK, let's discuss it on the talk page Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Use of File:Status of gay persons.jpg - Mr X 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Museum for Northern Peoples

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Museum for Northern Peoples, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure what you consider an assertion of significance in that article. That is was "opened by the Norwegian Minister of Cultural Affairs" perhaps? In any case, I don't see that it meets our notability requirements so I guess it should go to AfD. - Mr X 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Chosil Kil

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chosil Kil, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The sources, particularly the first one, plus exhibiting internationally, do give some indication of importance. May well not pass the GNG though, as the sites may not be sufficiently independant. . Thank you. Ged UK 13:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad-faith SPA tagging

Your tagging of my posts is clear-cut bad-faith. You're merely trying to poison the well against an opinion that differs from your own. You did not tag any IP comments which agree with your position, so your claim that you're acting in good faith is very evidently not true. I suggest you cut it out, otherwise this will go to ANI. Thank you. --78.35.243.205 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please present evidence that it was done in bad faith, or provide a valid rebuttal to my assertion that placing such tags is a commonly accepted practive in XfDs. In my experience, it is remarkably unusual for new editors to immediately join deletion discussions unless they are sock puppets or meat puppets. Also, I tagged one post, so I'm not sure what you wrote "Your [sic] tagging of my posts". - Mr X 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE - this edit

Re: this edit to Nyttend's Talk page, do not fret so much as to consider leaving the project. Rest assured that if the admin is not desysopped over this incident, there are now many eyes watching the editor. There was no excuse for his retaliatory unblock of the IP because he was forced to unblock Sportsfan5000, and his given excuse for the action is not acceptable. Deplorable even. There are a few who are defending him, but for the most part they are already known POV pushers. Just remember the editor and join the rational Wiki editors who will work to make sure editors like Nyttend are not allowed to push their hate of people that are not heterosexuals. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful words Dave. I will be interested to see how Nyttend responds to my note. - Mr X 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Hoss. But don't expect any kind of epiphany. heh Dave Dial (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just carry on being a decent human being. Sometimes we need to stare down those who are not accepting of and glorying in the differences in humanity. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. However, I will not reconsider; we are all equally subject to project policies, and I will not treat people differently based on the level of their involvement in this project. Despite what was said above, "forced" is not an accurate description of the situation. I was going to decline others' requests for an unblock, but I changed my mind when I saw that Sportsfan said that he wouldn't continue; I unblocked because blocks are preventative, not punitive. The blocking admin's rationale, together with comments such as DD2K's and Timtrent's here, show the true issue: the IP was blocked because he challenged the party line, and my head is being requested because treating people equally is seen as "hate of people that are not heterosexuals". Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying Nyttend. Unfortunately, these are not equal situations as you portray them, a fact that I have already refuted at AN, and is at the root of this issue. I'm not sure what you mean by "party line"; it seems that that may be code for "gay agenda", something I find deeply troubling. Otherwise I have no idea what you are referring to.

In any case, the comments by the IP were grossly offensive and homophobic. Admins are accountable to the standards of community, and I believe that your actions, even when confronted with objections and evidence, prove that you do not possess some of the qualities essential for adminship. - Mr X 21:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The preventative/punitive discussion is not a clear boundary. We block people to prevent vandalism. We block people to prevent further violations of 3RR. We block people to prevent gross incivility. It seems to me that the distinction becomes very blurred as we increase the length of block between punishment and prevention. One day is preventative because it is a shot across the bows. One week is an escalation and a smack for doing naughty things again and is a punishment. The semantic argument fails. All blocks are whatever word we use to describe them. They are 'carpety', and that word does as well as any other. Fiddle Faddle 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I mostly reject that essay as overly vague and an invitation to game the system. As I've argued before, blocks applied for preventative reasons are usually also punitive in their effect. Preventing someone from editing can be humiliating and can remove them from an activity that they enjoy. Good or bad, this is part of the deterrent effect that they have. We routinely block people for making trolling racist and antisemitic remarks, so I have no idea why vile homophobic remarks would be tolerated. I also have no idea why an admin would (seemingly) adopt an attitude that their actions are above reproach, but apparently this is nothing new with Nyttend. - Mr X 22:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The variations in people's attitudes are things, differences, that we should also glory in. I am happy that each admin is different, even happy when I perceive one to be incorrect. I'm old enough and ugly enough for the slings and arrows of Wikipedia to be a curiosity. I posted elsewhere about Floating Voter Theory. We only have to win the hearts and minds of those whose hearts and minds are undecided. The entrenched positions will never change. All we do, there, is hurt ourselves. In due time, when the floating voters have decided, then they will chip away at the granite of the entrenched positions. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debasish Kundu

I am glad you appreciated my efforts. I began by simply trying to pin down the citations and ended up discovering more than I really wanted to know about dodgy journals and universities - sad, really, I used to work in a University and appreciate how important high standards are in that area. I tried really hard to find something in the article that was genuinely worth keeping. But really, I think it needs deleting, and soon. Thanks again. --Rbreen (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Diogo da Silva Farias

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Diogo da Silva Farias, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from nn94_14

Hello MrX. We have removed the page for all season in MŽRKL on the grounds that I did not use reliable sources. As a source I used about the same with Wikipedia in your language, so I therefore pray back page. Thank you in advance. Nn94 14 17:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misunderstand what you wrote, but I redirected the season articles back to the main article because the main article has all of the information in it already. There was no value in having separate articles. If a season by itself is notable and you can find independent reliable sources, then there can be a separate article. Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources for other articles.- Mr X 18:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for making these pages for each season is to present a detailed presentation of each season, and there is no source other than Wikipedia in Croatian language that I use for this. Nn94 14 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, new websites, journals and books. If the Croatian Wikipedia articles has proper sources, you can use those sources, but only after you have read them to ensure that they are valid sources. - Mr X 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia in the Croatian language, there are reliable sources, and resources on the site eurobasket.com the same season. So I would ask you to return the direction to those sites that I could put these resources. 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn94 14 (talk • contribs)

You are able to do that yourself. Just click on the links in you contribution log Special:Contributions/Nn94_14, click history, then click compare selected revisions and then click restore this version. I recommend that you do this one article at a time though, otherwise someone is likely to restore the redirects. - Mr X 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nn94 14 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hasty

don't mean to alarm you, but I've seen some CSD taggings there were pretty quick. Dloh cierekim 01:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From me? I am aware that you marked one as such, ten minutes after it was created, although it clearly met the criteria for CSD. What other ones are you aware of? I think I've followed the 10 minute guideline for A1 and A3. I will join the discussion at WT:CSD, because I have a few thinks to add myself.- Mr X 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Share your thoughts. I see a lot of 2 minute taggings. I think 10 minutes is too quick, but I don't think anyone is going to agree. WP:NPP seemed pretty clear that A1 and A3 especially, but also others excluding G10 and G3 of course. Dloh cierekim 01:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OH, the problem with meeting the criteria at < 10 minutes is that the article might look better after 10 minutes. A lot of editors are not going to create a viable article on first edit. Dloh cierekim 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, and I will continue participating in the discussion at WT:CSD. Please also see my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 1#Template:Hasty. Based on my experience and observations, I don't think that many articles actually improve in that 10 minute window. With your permission, let's continue the discussion at WT:CSD so that others can participate.- Mr X 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you use this feed

Special:NewPagesFeed? It has changed my wikilife. Dloh cierekim 03:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one I use. - Mr X 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nice

ref repair20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!- Mr X 03:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J Plattus (2nd nomination)

Hi. Thanks for nominating Andrew J Plattus for deletion. I've had to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Plattus (2nd nomination) as the AFD tag was removed from the article while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Plattus is still open. You may wish to express your opinion in the original deletion discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend RFC/U cert

If you are still interested, I can be the second certifier. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Georgewilliamherbert. I will begin drafting it in a sandbox, and let you have look at it before I post it. - Mr X 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I see you all over the place. Pass a Method talk 15:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Pass a Method. Much appreciated! - Mr X 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation

Dear Mr. X, including such sections indeed makes the article more neutral in presentation, hence the need to keep it. Furthermore, the sources cited are now all reputable print sources. Thanks Kraljsamsvijeta (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraljsamsvijeta. I appreciate your effort to make the article more neutral, but I don't think that was accomplished by your bold edits, which is why I reverted them. The material that you added was largely sourced to opinion blogs and position papers that we not published by reliable sources. Let's continue discussing it on the talk page so that other editors can participate.- Mr X 14:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Gask

I certainly understand why Lilian Gask may not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, given the fact this IMHO rather extraordinary writer (who explored science fiction and other notably modern themes, and who was friends with Evelyn Waugh's very well-versed publisher-father, among others, inscribing a book at his request to the then six-year-old future author of Brideshead Revisited) to date lacks significant contemporary attention in the rather new discipline of children's literature scholarship. Perhaps a Wikipedia entry should await the publication of research I have performed over the last nine years, as an avid collector and reader, but I don't expect my book to appear for at least another two years . . . Do Internet bookseller pages count as legitimate Wikipedia references? Otherwise, I would recommend a speedy deletion, since Gask is, after all, a female author, and was female at the time she was writing, and we all know how they fare on Wikipedia, right? HotKokopelli (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is probably notable given the number of books that she has written. I tried to find some biographical information on the web, and all I could come up with is her birth date. There are probably printed sources that could be found. I would say that a bookseller site biography would not be considered a reliable source, but I think it's better than no sources. I don't see any need to speedy delete the article. I'm not sure what you mean by female authors and how they fare on Wikipedia. We have at least 2000 such articles on Wikipedia. - Mr X 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pantarei Advertising

MrX, thank you for your comment. I would like to kindly inform you that I am not closely affiliated with the agency that I was writing about. I have edited a few things that might help me to have my article being kept online and not deleted. Please kindly inform me if there is anything I can do with the article to keep it online. I hope you will take it as a consideration- I really appreciate it!Shirlsyy (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the links in the deletion banner at the top of the article. To save the article you will have to be able to show that this organization is notable and meets the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. That has to be done with reliable independent sources like magazines, newspapers, books, news websites, and journals.- Mr X 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I borrow your eyes?

Hi MrX! I noticed you were on despite the hour, and wondered if you had time to take a look at Hilary Rosen. A user (MilesMoney) has a BLP concern, and I would like your input on whether I made the right call. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will have a look and see if I can offer a third opinion. - Mr X 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i agree

with you. Don't now what the new Draft namespace will portend. Dloh cierekim 18:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think (or hope) that it may address a lot of the issues. - Mr X 19:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods

This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:

PDX Pods
Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Fair enough :) I did say that. I think the "some" could be added still, but it's not big enough a deal to push. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just trying to avoid the wall of text on the talk page that inevitably would have ensued. - Mr X 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin AE

I forgot briefly that he was running; my comment and participation with regards to another candidate could be seen as having a conflict of interest. I have struck my comment and recuse myself from any further involvement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for notifying me. - Mr X 18:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics at the 2013 East Asian Games

This is part of series on 2013 East Asian Games, so deletion may be controversial. Therefore, I removed your proposed deletion tag. You can tag it, edit it, or start a discussion at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the notification. - Mr X 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dark money, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Roccodrift (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! After 7 years of contributing to this project someone finally welcomes me! Let's please discuss my "original research" on the article talk page. - Mr X 20:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Sound

Hello, MrX I would like you to review the wiki page for "Sweet Sound" many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Bowden (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is comprehensive, but a little weak on sources. Pete Townshend's biography does lend some notability though. Charting at 169 is not very notable. See the applicable notability guideline here: WP:NALBUM.

Several sources are self-published and thewho.info is someone's personal blog. Please see WP:RS for advice on how to identify reliable sources. I have removed the navigational boxes, which are not really relevant to the subject (see WP:NAVBOX). I've also removed some categories that were parent categories of more specific categories, and categories that did not seem relevant (see WP:CAT). - Mr X 01:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, MrX/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Got it. Thanks so much! - Mr X 02:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROD on Inercia

Hello MrX, just wanted to let you know I contested the PROD on this article since the film does seem to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NFILM. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I think you have the wrong person, or at least I hope you do. - Mr X 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see what happened: I moved Deepak Adhikari Filmography to Deepak Adhikari, which was reverted by User:Dev229 leaving me as the article creator in the page history. In any case, it doesn't seem to be an attack page. Perhaps you meant to nominate it for speedy deletion for some other reason? - Mr X 04:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Dear , I am very sorry. I want to send the message to the actual creator of this article. Not you. This was done by me by mistake. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. It was caused by an anomaly in how the system handles page history for reverted moves. - Mr X 21:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, MrX/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks very much! - Mr X 21:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content referencing and re-wording

I am going to copy this to the article talk page and will respond there

Hi MrX, Thank you for your notes. I do not mean to cause any offense and if I have done so please accept my apology as it would have been totally unintentional. I apologize again as I did not see the reasons for the revert and I hope I now explain the reason why I am trying to add to the paragraph in question.

I feel what I am trying to say is not tangential since there is a statement that refers to Buddhism in this article and also refers to an “integral part of Buddhist monastic life”. Then it is within the context of the text to provide the balanced view of the Buddhist monastic code that must be followed by Monks and Nuns and laity including in Japan. This code is what is referenced from the Pali Canonical texts and prescribes the monastic life. This code is not my opinion, it is what Buddhist must follow to be called a Buddhist especially for those that live a monastic life. This code includes refraining from sexual intercourse and is relevant to any form of intercourse including sexual behavior between members of the same sex such as may be the case in homosexuality.

The generalized terms in the paragraph I am trying to add to, especially “integral part of ” and “This same-sex love culture” denotes that this is the normal, when in fact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. Such statements may mislead the reader if not balanced. To balance the text I provided the following source –

Wallace, Alan B. (2002), ‘The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West’, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, Charles Prebish & Martin Baumann (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9 state:

‘Over the course of daily life, lay Theravada Buddhists may occasionally take the eight precepts for a period ranging from one day to a week, during which time they may stay in a temple and devote themselves to religious practices, including meditation and chanting. The eight precepts include the more common five lay precepts of refraining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) false speech, (4) sexual misconduct, and (5) the use of intoxicants, in addition to the three precepts of refraining from (6) eating after midday, (7) enjoying worldly amusements, and (8) indulging in luxurious sleeping arrangements and sexual intercourse.’

Here, it is seen that when staying in a temple, similar to but less strict than observing monastic life, one must refrain from sexual intercourse. This is a strict code for Buddhists and is referenced from the Canonical texts.

I have been told that this citation is not reputed so I have found the following text that references the five and eight precepts directly from the Tipitaka (Canonical texts). The Tipitaka is the direct teaching from the Buddha that Buddhist Monks, Nuns and laity are required to adhere to be Buddhist.

The source is,

[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

This article can be accessed using the web version located at - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html

Please note the following page, paragraph and line numbers refer to the pdf document version that can be found using Google scholar.

From this source, Page 26, paragraph 2, line 6 states that the “pañcasila”, also known as the five precepts includes the training rule, ‘(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;’

Page 26, Paragraph 3, states that this is one of the five precepts that forms a minimal ethical code that binds Buddhist laity. Here the term “sexual misconduct” means sexual relationships or conduct not within or before marriage.

On page 36, paragraph 5, lines 1 to 4 it states, ‘Beyond the five precepts Buddhism offers a higher code of moral discipline for the laity consisting of eight precepts (atthasila). This code of eight precepts is not entirely different in content from the fivefold code, but includes the five precepts with one significant revision. The revision comes in the third precept, where abstaining from sexual misconduct is changed to abstaining from incelibacy.’

This means that an un-ordained Buddhist who does not live in a monastery and lives an ordinary life, like you and me, and who observes the eight precepts must practice celibacy.

To reach this level an ordinary Buddhist must abide or live in what is known as the Three Refuges. To first enter into abiding by the three refuges, Page 2, Paragraph 1, lines 5 to 9 says that,

‘If one has sincerely become convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, and wishes to follow the teaching, it is preferable, when possible, to conform to the prescribed way of going for refuge that has come down in the Buddhist tradition. This way is to receive the three refuges from a Bhikkhu’. A Bhikkhu is ‘a Buddhist monk who has taken full ordination and remains in good standing in the monastic Order.’

It is clear that to take the precept of celibacy, meaning to abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, one must first take the refuges from a Buddhist Monk that leads a monastic life in the monastic order. It is clear that for a Buddhist Monk or Nun to live a monastic life the Monk or Nun must also follow the precept of celibacy, otherwise the Monk or Nun would have broken this precept or code of conduct and would be required to disrobe and enter normal life.

It is clear from the referenced texts that what is integral to the Buddhist monastic life with any link to sexual relations is celibacy. This contradicts what is written in the paragraph that I am trying to balance. This also brings into question the documented evidence, paintings and literature that is stated in this paragraph.

Please review the following proposed addition to this paragraph,

“However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.[1]” [1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

If you like I can enter this as a separate paragraph that follows on. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this as I would not want to mislead the reader in anyway. I feel the article handles well what may be seen by some as sensitive, and I respect its content. This is why I want to give the reader as much information as possible so any question of misinformation does not arise. As recommended I will also begin look to start a new section on the article's Talk Page. However, I wanted to contact you directly before doing so. Sorry if I have written a lot on this, however, I wanted to explain what happened. I thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Tdmdb (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I think anyone who goes to the length of replying to a post the size of this in the hope of improving an article deserves recognition for their extraordinary effort. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the recognition Jenova20. I do what I can. - Mr X 13:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare.us

This is a relatively new (April 2013) online news org launched by Cox media. [1] Cox is a media conglomerate including several daily newspapers including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, almost twenty TV stations, 87 radio stations, and boasted a 2012 revenue of nearly $2 billion. Rare represents Cox's "first national news product." It has in my opinion a decidedly conservative editorial posture. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't see a problem with it. I agree it has a conservative flavor. - Mr X 22:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico just got marriage equality

You might want to un-revert that guy's edits. The NM Supreme Court just granted statewide marriage equality.

Will do. Thanks. - Mr X 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Thiruloki.
Message added 09:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The ChampionMan 1234 09:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Remove some of the multiple diffs in each section (you don't need 9 in the italics section for example), and add a line at the top of the table linking to the full table in your user space (bold it to make it very clear). Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fair, although I fail to understand Rschen's concern about it being too long. I will have to do it later though, because I'm stepping away from the internet for while. - Mr X 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at it if you want; you can always tweak it later. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BK. Much appreciated. - Mr X 23:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You see, you have simply pressed revert three times. I've pressed it once, and then I have created a talk page discussion, understood your concerns, and edited to specifically address those concerns. I assume you left this note because you thought it would negate the warning I gave you after you reverted three times? - Mr X 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the hell would I think this negates the template message you left me? That's just stupid and you suggesting it makes you look foolish. Your reverts are reverts whether you use the button or "edit to address concerns". That doesn't save them from being reverts. Funny how you don't count those, yet you want to classify my removing the name of the reporter as a "revert" (which is overly pedantic and legalistic on your part). None of you pushing these additions gave a rats ass about that article until this incident. You came there to push your agenda and your tag team editing and shouting down any opposing opinions is going to allow that to happen. Congrats. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cause to be unpleasant (or to use bullets). Yes, I technically removed material twice. Once by reverting wholesale and once by carefully copy editing the material. Since traditionally one does not deliver a 3RR warning to an experienced user unless they have reverted three times, I logically assumed that you warned me in direct reaction to me warning you. Although your last revert was technically your forth, I showed restraint by not reporting you to WP:3RR. - Mr X 23:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bullet points. I will keep using them. You can keep complaining about it, but just be aware that it's a waste of time. Again, the fact that you even consider that a revert speaks volumes about your legalistic view. As for your "logical assumption", none of that explains why I'd be stupid enough to think that it would negate the warning you left me. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Hall

Concerning your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grady Hall, would you look at the references I found and have added to the article, and tell me if you still believe it should be deleted? He has been interviewed for his work, and his work has won notable awards. Dream Focus 19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. You cite WP:ANYBIO #1 Which says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." As far as I can tell, some of the videos projects that he has worked on have won awards, some minor, but that's not the same as him winning awards. The Video Static article is helpful toward establishing notability, but is not a strong source, nor does it cover the subject (Grady Hall) in any real depth. It looks like the article will be kept in spite of my !vote, and I've seen worse biographys kept, but I'm still not convinced that this one meets the inclusion threshold.- Mr X 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He won awards for his work. His work is notable enough his name gets mentioned when they give praise to them. Dream Focus 21:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any major award that he won, or that he was nominated for several times? What I see are some smaller awards (like MTV-VMA, best visual effects) that he co-won. I don't think those are sufficient for notability, especially since secondary sources have apparently not taken notice of them. - Mr X 21:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC

Well, it's been well over a year since our run-in regarding the SPLC, and I guess things have calmed down a fair bit, though I've found myself involved in some American political articles once more. I removed an SPLC descriptor from the Pamela Geller article, and I did a search and removed a few more occurrences. Now, I guess most of those were added by you (this one certainly was) so I just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know what I was doing. I don't want it to seem personal - I honestly don't believe the descriptor should be included, and that seems to have been the consensus from the RfC. St Anselm (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your flurry of activity

since I'm stll watching most of those articles. I'm fine with removing the descriptors. In fact, I thought they were already removed after the RfC last year. Thanks for letting me know. - Mr X 03:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just like to Congratulate you for being the first Wikipedian who saw my first article in Wikipedia. Thanks ! Methly Ana (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Dynasty

You're not altogether wrong that I removed some stuff that could have been kept, but for Pete's sake... you just put back a wildly POV-laden segment about Conversion therapy and a number of references to Radaronline.com, which is simply not going to pass muster as RS in this context. Roccodrift (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion so that we could discuss what needs to be removed. I think it is mostly a WP:SYNTH issue. It's much easier to remove chunks of content than to re-add the (good) chunks removed in the bulk revert that you performed.- Mr X 18:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we pre-suppose that there were some good chunks, you could be right. I scanned and I didn't see anything, although as I have already allowed, there may have been something. The editor who put it in is an obvious SPA, so I find myself disinclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. If he added anything useful, I'm sure we'll glean it out and get it back in. Roccodrift (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main thing was the ref expansion, but I can re-run WebRefLinks to fix that.- Mr X 19:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption

Hello, I am CanadianDude1. I have been on wikipedia since around early 2012, but I have not been doing any work until November 22, 2013. I would like for you to adopt me. I'm mainly working on the page The Next Step. I hope to work on Toronto blackout (2013) as well. If you can adopt me, that would be very helpful of you.

Sincerely, CanadianDude1 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanadianDude1. Sure, I would be willing to adopt you. I don't have a formal program, but if you can give me some idea of where you need help or what you would like to accomplish, I can put something together for you. Best - Mr X 17:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adopting me. May I ask for assistance in editing Toronto blackout (2013)? The page has multiple issues that I hope to address, but I can't without some help. Thanks. CanadianDude1 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's continue the discussion on the article talk page. Meanwhile, can you find 4-5 sources in at least 2-3 publications, that cover the blackout in some detail? - Mr X 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual guidelines

Thank you for starting the deletion process. The motivations have still left me puzzled but I did find something that could be an explanation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. That "something" is very interesting. I hope we are not dealing with someone who simply wants to be disruptive.- Mr X 00:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be disheartening. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re sources

regarding your edit summary [2] "useful" does not meet the WP:BURDEN requirement of being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN states "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

and "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable.... is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

If you wish to challenge the reliability of the sources, please start a talk page discussion. Don't simply remove the content and the sources.- Mr X 14:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Reekrit Serai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reekrit Serai 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/Reekrit Serai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Your reporting

I posted a message here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilesMoney#Tea_Party but now I see it was you, not MilesMoney who reported the earlier Arthur Rubin infraction. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about sockpuppetry, and strong evidence, then you may wish to open a sockpuppet investigation. - Mr X 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what sockpuppetry has to do with what I posted. Sorry you're not interested. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"It appears Arthur Rubin has been blocked from editing Tea Party articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned and also using a sock puppet to evade the block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Arthur_Rubin which I believe you reported which is why I'm posting here."

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be interested in. Sorry.- Mr X 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, too. It does look like Rubin crossed the line into TPm territory again, but I don't understand the sockpuppet allegation here. While the proxy editing may approach meatpuppetry, it's not sockpuppetry. MilesMoney (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi

Very speedy deletion, it seems!! You deleted my page Peregrine Fellowes because I had not really added anything useful to it. However, I have now added some information so I hope you will allow the page to exist, while I set about gathering and adding information. Peregrine was my father and he had a long and distinguished career, in a variety of roles, which I would like to record on Wikipedia. In time you will see it is worthwhile, and will likely find users who want to learn about him.

I am a Wikipedia supporter with a monthly contribution scheduled so please treat me kindly :)

Best wishes, Rory Fellowes (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Rory Fellowes[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Are you talking about the article where the only content was something like "This is a place holder"? If so, I'm sorry, but you can't do that. There are warnings at the top of the new article edit window that instruct:

Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article.
When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Peregrine Fellowes . There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

You can't simply ignore these warnings and expect everything will turn out OK.- Mr X 14:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]