User talk:MrX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Umbris)
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Talk to Me Tools Articles Photos
MrX talk tools articles photos

About Hugh Elliott Changes[edit]

MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the applicable guideline: WP:USERG. if there are exceptions to this guideline, or if IMDb now has an editorial process for some content, I'm not aware of it. Here are some discussions that may help: [1][2], or this essay: WP:CITEIMDB.- MrX 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thank you for the reply and the information. I see there is quite a debate going on re IMDb's validity as a reference with many pro and con views. All I can offer to the discussion is my personal experience. From that, I would say the reason why IMDb falls into the middle category of "Disputed" (between "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate") is that many of the IMDb categories clearly don't get fact-vetted - they are only vetted for obscenity, reasonableness, etc. But, this is not true with the Filmography Credits category. Upon submitting credits to IMDb, I have often received inquiries from them for "more reference needed", so there is editorial diligence being done on their end for this category. As a film editor, my response to such requests can only be to reference directly the actual show or episode on Amazon Instant Video, where my credit clearly appears in the end credit roll. My credits are factual, though - aside from IMDb Filmography - can only be proven through this non-standard means. Considering this, would you be amenable to the following: I do not use my IMDb Bio as a reference - I use only the Filmography Credits page as a reference? Further, a reference could be added to an actual episode on Amazon Instant Video (for instance) showing my credit in the credit roll?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply 1sjjmhbt0. You make some interesting points that I was not aware of. Could I suggest that we continue this discussion at WP:RS/N to get more input from others? You can just copy this discussion (in whole or part) to that notice board and we can see what other editors have to say. My knowledge of IMDB editorial practices is obviously very limited.- MrX 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MrX. I just posted our discussion to the notice board.1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MrX. I'm no longer seeing our discussion posted at WP:RS/N. Is there a time limit imposed there for postings? Before it disappeared, one individual had posted a positive response - in support of IMDb Filmography Credits as a reliable source. What are your current thoughts on the matter? Thank you.1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes 1sjjmhbt0, any discussion on that noticeboard that hasn't had a response in five days automatically gets archived. You could retrieve it from the archive and repost it, or you could start a new discussion, if you think you might get more responses with some additional time.- MrX 18:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Juan F. DellAglio[edit]

I saw you marked Juan F. DellAglio for a blp prod-I can tell you right away it is a HUGE hoax-check his dob and the dates on the filmography. (Also I know most of those games don't even exist) Wgolf (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see now that it does seem to be a hoax. A little late for April fools day. Thanks for catching that.- MrX 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Hey MrX, sorry I didn't respond to the Sockpuppet case. I only had mobile phone access today and I don't type well on here with it. I'm glad you did the case because there was an editor that had reverted one of my edits on the season articles which led me to think it was the same user. (I don't remember which one of those it was, though.) I'm glad Jrcla2 responded, and that CU confirmed all but the one were the same user. Corky | Chat? 00:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The folks at SPI were especially helpful in quickly putting the sock farm out of business. Best wishes - MrX 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your message[edit]

Ah, my mistake. I'll keep that in mind in future. Sorry! Aurora (talkcontribs) 21:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But I don't have Photoshop![edit]

:( In all seriousness, I lined up the mugs using transparencies and Openoffice, and although the creator of the image is using a different frame from the show, you're clearly right. Origamite 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, someone went to a lot of trouble between the fake websites and the Photoshopping. I hope it was worth it.- MrX 03:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your message![edit]

Dear Sir, thank you very much for your time and support. I know the citation rules but I just created our page and is not approved yet. I did not mean to try advertising or anything like that. Would you mind leaving my edit without link? And as soon as our page is approved I'll link it accordingly. Thank you! Tony (talk • 17:26, 9 April 2015 (+2 UTC)

The concern was that the software should not be added to the list article until the article about the software is published to article space, assuming that you can show that the software is notable. If you want to circumvent this common practice, you should propose it on the list article talk page and gain consensus from other editors. If you prematurely reinsert the name of the software into the list article, I don't plan to revert it, but someone else probably will. Editing should serve our reader's needs to learn more about important subjects.- MrX 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help sir. I will just have to wait for a few days then! I did not know this specific detail. Cheers! Tony (talk • 21:19, 10 April 2015 (+2 UTC)

You're welcome Tony. Good luck.- MrX 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Hey, I am a Person who Studies the Holocaust. Zyclon B was used to MILLIONS of People. And, you said that It only killed "A Million people". It's common Knowledge! The Final Solution Killed 11 MILLION PEOPLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCJ123 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not common knowledge that millions of people were murdered with Zyklon B. If you have sources to the contrary, please feel free to present them on the article talk page so that we can discuss them.- MrX 18:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've made a research and found some trial documents from Bruno Tesch process. The court established and convicted him basing on information, that roughly 4.5 million people were killed by CyklonB only in Auschwitz/Birkenau. Here the link: So, I think it cab said millions, or just simple change 1 million to roughly 4.5 million, citing the court documents. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please post this on the article talk page so that other editors can join the discussion. Thank you.- MrX 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Spartacus?[edit]

Thanks for this. Though MrXTemplate has a ring to it .. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Spartacus is OK; Template, not so much. Smile eye.png- MrX 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jc caylen[edit]

I saw that you put Jc caylen as a Prod, that's a pure CSD-also it has been removed a few times already see Jc Caylen.

Yeah, but since I removed 95% of the content I didn't think it was appropriate for me to CSD it. Anyway, it's gone now and it's been salted, so all is good.- MrX 02:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The user Haji Sultan Rahi[edit]

Looks like a SPI-check out here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj Wgolf (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh. I'm not really surprised to learn that that user is a sock. It seems like every time there's a new editor creating multiple unsourced stubs in the same topic area, it turns out to be a sock. Thanks for letting me know. I may be able to add something to the SPI later.- MrX 04:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Might want to check the report as I found at least 2 IP's removing the AFD tags. Wgolf (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that. Is it possible that this is some edit-a-thon (or similar event) in Pakistan? I've noticed quite a few Pakistan geography stubs being created lately.- MrX 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolo Barnard[edit]

I sent this for afd. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't think I ever edited the article. Is there a reason that you notified me?- MrX 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you nominated this for afd, an article about essay written by above subject. Educationtemple (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
BulbB Oh, now I get it.- MrX 21:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers! I have to see that there are no further articles about the subject. May be the second assay written by him! Educationtemple (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC) check-in[edit]

Hello MrX,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to For more information about how to use clippings, see .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Thanks Mr X really appreciate your help.I have clearly noted you suggestions and will follow. Thanks once again.Regards--Rberchie (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome Rberchie. I'm glad to help.- MrX 23:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy[edit]

Ok, I get your message. Instead of edit-warring, I've posted a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard. (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well looks like the sock is now recreating talk pages of salted pages[edit]

Look: yeah....Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and general vandalism. Maybe one of the SPI clerks can range block the underlying IP addresses this time.- MrX 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Making less-than-forthright use of admin process, or issuing threats of doing so[edit]

are both sanctionable. Since you're so fond of templating me, I just want to make sure you remain aware of this. You didn't even attempt to discuss the article, neither did Cwobeel. Completely unproductive on both your parts. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my warning. Your claim that I "didn't even attempt to discuss the article" is mistaken. Your claim "neither did Cwobeel" even more so.- MrX 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Uhh I meant the thing we were talking about when Cwobeel had a hissy fit for no reason and I responded by daring him to say that I was being unreasonable (because I wasn't). Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)