User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2017

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closer

There wasn't a clear consensus, and I opened a new RFC recently, and opposed the same, one of the earlier Opposer support the inclusion there too. There are other problems involving COI. Please remove the mention that there was a consensus. Should I ring this up at AN or ANI? Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Prokaryotes, I don't know what you're referring to. Please provide links or diffs.- Mr X 13:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this more recent RFC. When I created that RFC i wasn't aware that there was another RFC, and that RFC it seems wasn't posted there by that section author. In the new RFC the authors who oppose inclusion posted all within hours. There is evidence that at least some of those authors have a COI. Not entirely sure how to proceed, but the previous RFC should factor in my oppose and the support of one of the other opposers who supports my RFC, when consensus is weighted. prokaryotes (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don.t know how you managed to miss the RfC that was opened 10 days before yours, but it doesn't change the outcome of the RfC that I closed anyway. Your duplicate RfC is out of process, and it would likely result in the same determination of consensus.

I respectfully decline to overturn my close, but of course you are welcome to request a close review.- Mr X 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I wait a couple of days with this (I want to offer involved editors the chance to declare their COI), otherwise my argument will involve COI. Also just by counting it appears there was just one more vote opposing, and I would obviously had voted oppose too if aware that my newer RFC oppose isn't factored in. prokaryotes (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's entirely up to you.- Mr X 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the section creator is the author of the study, but it appears he didn't started the RFC, can you confirm this (that the RFC wasn't started by the section author)? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would have any bearing on the outcome. Maybe I'm missing your point?- Mr X 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, i guess you are right, but the reason i missed that RFC was if i recall correctly that this RFC was buried somewhere at the bottom, just as a small notice box, without a sub section heading. Anyway thanks for the pointers. prokaryotes (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Hopefully it worked out on the article talk page to (most) everyone's satisfaction.- Mr X 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plimpton - duplicate RFC

You recently closed[1] an RFC at Plimpton_322#Request_for_comment.

Unfortunately, after that RFC-template expired, but before closure, someone opened a duplicate RFC at Talk:Plimpton_322#Proposal_for_inclusion. The only new response on the duplicate RFC is the person who opened the duplicate RFC.

I was very tempted to place a purely procedural close on the duplicate RFC. However I the other side has already been tossing out claims of conspiracy, suppression, and absurd conflict of interest arguments. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Please see the section immediately above. The duplicate RfC could be closed, or it could be left open to see if a new consensus develops. I don't know if it really matters either way. I do think that COI aspersions are not going to lead to a productive resolution of the dispute.- Mr X 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the section above after I hit save, chuckle. Would you close the duplicate as well? Before you closed, I had left a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Duplicate_simultaneous_RFC asking for the duplicate to be closed. Running a duplicate RFC is effectively forum shopping. I also find it difficult to believe prokaryotes didn't know about the first RFC. They closely examined the section titled Request_for_comment, with support and oppose votes, and they pinged every person and IP in the section. Including duplicate pings to supporters who using multiple usernames or edited while logged out. Alsee (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone eles will have to close the duplicate RfC, although there is no requirement that RfCs be formally closed if their outcome is obvious. My previous close has been challenged, so it would only compound the situation if I were to close the duplicate RfC.- Mr X 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I've asked for a review yesterday here. I have no idea what you mean by COI aspersions, the topic was first brought up when a study author got involved, and since other involved editors also publish math studies I saw it fit to post a general COI notice. prokaryotes (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I count correctly, with my newer RFC vote there seems to be a close tie of the amount of people opposing and supporting inclusion. Yesterday I also brought up commentary published in the magazine Science, not previously discussed, essentially calling it robust, but speculative. (See newest section here) Unfortunately, since the first RFC commenced, the opposing editors are more active. prokaryotes (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "aspersions" in sense that your stated concern about COI was not directed at specific people, but was instead directed at anyone who would care to admit it. More of a sprinkling if you will. The close tie in the number of people supporting and opposing the disputed content is indicative of no consensus. I'm not sure why the same content needs to be discussed in multiple sections. It seems a bit counterproductive.- Mr X 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the previous RFC, it was buried somewhere at the bottom of that related section if I recall correctly. If I had been aware I would have replied there obviously and had supported the inclusion. prokaryotes (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking mentor

From Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, are you interested? X1\ (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X1\. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry, but I'm not able to take on any adoptees at this time because of my limited available time. I would be happy to answer any questions you have or point you in the right direction on an as-needed basis. Just post any questions here in this section and I will do the best I can to help. - Mr X 23:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello MrX:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– —usernamekiran(talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you usernamekiran. As well to you.- Mr X 23:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing BLP material

Please don't reinstate unsourced contentious material about a living person. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. If BullRangifer has sources, they can be cited, but I believe you two (or three) are just peddling unverifiable conspiracy theories. Politrukki (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry but we don't require sources on a talk page as long as editors are discussing content in good faith. I strongly suggest you stop removing the material, in opposition to multiple experienced editors. It's very disruptive.- Mr X 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users should know that BLP applies to talk pages. Experienced users should know not to oppose good faith BLP objections. I don't know whether you did it deliberately or whether you just didn't know what you were doing – I'm assuming the latter – but reinstating BLP violations is very disruptive. Politrukki (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are uncalled for

This threat was totally uncalled for, and I strongly suggest that you limit your comments to the BLP vio and not me. You already demonstrated your unfamiliarity with BLP policy and what constitutes a RS when Opinion pieces and Perspectives are involved, so if anyone is treading anywhere, you might want to look more closely at where you're headed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ma'ma, it was very much called for and I meant every syllable of it. I, and other editors (even admins), have tried to explain to you why throwing a bunch of random policies at the wall to see which will stick is not helpful. As of late, some of your comments a just so blatantly false that it's no longer possible to assume good faith. I'm not sure if you really are confused about what policies actually mean, or if you are trying to use them as blunt objects. Either way, it has moved from being annoyingly amusing to being outright disruptive.- Mr X 15:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, he's got a point there. I do give you credit for your survival skills and personal charm. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I third the call for sending OP Enforcement for appropriate flogging and exile. My god, if this is ‘t a case of WP: Not here, and WP: Competence is required, then what is? OP couldn’t read her way out of a paper bag if the instructions were printed in 14 point type. Never have I seen such a tendentious editor so insistent on reading poorly and insistent on willfully misreading what every source has to say. Never have I seen an editor delete articles written by professors in the field, b/c they are “opinions” and then replace then with her own illiterate ramblings. OP lost the deletion discussion , and then chose to destroy the article from the inside by gutting it of content, reliable sources, and intentionally adding falsehoods to it, and writing in prose which, no offense, reads like it was written by a middle schooler. Everyone who reads that article knows less about it due to the relentless efforts of OP to edit war to destroy the article, after her initial attempt to delete the article resulted in asnow ieep, and a number of editors questioning her objectivity, competence, and judgment. My god, if this isn’t a bannable offense then what is? Every day this user is allowed to destroy pages by touching them is a day this project is endangered. She is easily the most destructive editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and has no real competitiors for the doshonour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.95.250 (talk • contribs) 18:21, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

No need to exaggerate here. Atsme is generally a good contributor who does a lot of good for the project, but I think she has strong views about political subjects which creates blindspots.- Mr X 18:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, MrX. The IP is part of a huge sock farm, and he's finding new IP addresses faster than admins can block him. Several admins are aware of his activities. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Turkey Day! (if you celebrate the event, if not Happy Any Day!)

Me:I was going to serve yams with Thanksgiving dinner, but I sat on them. Mom: What are you serving now? Me: Squash.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Atsme. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well! - Mr X 23:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MrX. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian RfC

Suggest you seek closure through one of the established channels. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Anyone who is so-inclined can do that themselves, but it's not even necessary if the result is obvious.- MrX 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but actually they are continuing discussion trying to nullify the snow result of your RfC, which should have killed this ugly fringe vampire dead. I've lost track are all these nonsense denialist bits removed from the article? If not, that needs to be done and any reinsertion contrary to the results of the RfC needs to be dealt with. These BS sidetrack discussions are a huge waste of scarce editor time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is inserted, it will be removed because there's rough consensus against including it. Nobody is required to keep arguing with people who never give up and who keep repeating the same arguments over and over. I'm not going to request a formal close, because I just don't care, but you're welcome to request one if you think it will help.- MrX 23:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello MrX: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you Winkelvi. I hope your holidays are splendid as well.- MrX 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"tis the season...."

Hello MrX: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

I see someone else sent the same card. ―Buster7 ☎

Thank you Buster7. Happy holidays to you as well. (It looks like you shop at the same Hallmark shop as Winkelvi. Haha.)

Usage of refideas

The refideas template has usage on over 5000 pages https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Refideas&namespace=10#bottom --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. If you think a source should be used, use it, or place it in a regular talk page discussion where it can be archived when nobody else thinks it's useful. The top of article talk pages is not a shrine to URLs.- MrX 12:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, MrX!

Happy New Year!

MrX,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Winkelvi. Happy New Year to you also!- MrX 00:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]