User talk:MrX/Archive/July-September 2014

Is it vandalism or edit war?[edit]

Greetings, Mr. X! I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for several months, but I now am peripherally involved in a dispute which I hope you can help resolve.

It concerns the description of the work of an organization called OBON 2015, whose mission is to return Japanese good luck flags from WW2 to the families of the slain soldiers. I am familiar with OBON 2015 and recently became aware that the paragraph describing their work in the Good Luck Flag article was altered to state that the brereaved families did not want the flags returned because they would be considered "unclean" and therefore would force the families to perform a ritual cleansing of their homes. No sources for this are cited. However, the original text does cite sources showing that families who have had flags returned to them have been grateful and have experienced closure after decades of grieving. The editor who made the alteration putting OBON 2015's work in a negative light has simply removed those citations, along with the original text.

A very inexperienced editor supporting OBON 2015 has been attempting to revert to the original text, and being unaware of the rules against multiple reverts has now become involved in a long edit war with the editor who made the negative alteration. I have been asked for advice, and since I'm not very experienced myself, I thought it best to turn to you. Should the OBON 2015 supporter open a discussion on the Talk page for Good Luck Flag? Or is it clear, given that legitimate citations are being removed by the other editor, that this is a case of vandalism?

Any advice you can provide will be much appreciated! --Ailemadrah (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ailemadrah. I don't see vandalism, but I do see an edit war. It looks like 114.31.218.104 is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content that supports their point of view. Koshihikari should not accuse the IP of vandalism though. Vandalism implies intent to harm the encyclopedia, which I don' t believe to be the case here. Both editors should be warned about edit waring an invited to the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for their preferred version. I will report it to [[WP:RPP] ] so that the page can be temporarily edit protected, which will hopefully inspire discussion.- Mr X 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mr. X! I do have one unanswered question, which is: isn't it against Wikipedia policy to replace sourced content with unsourced content?

Ailemadrah (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The policy that would apply would be WP:V, so no, it's not necessarily against policy to remove sourced content, but it is definitely permissible to remove content that can not be verified in reliable sources. An editor who repeatedly removes sourced content and replaces it with unsourced content against the objections of other editors is edit warring, which is a blockable offense. Editors who repeatedly insert unverifiable content (such as original research) may be sanctioned for disruption.- Mr X 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP 114.31.218.104 has again replaced the sourced content written by Koshihikari with the same unsourced content. And this happened after Koshihikari opened a discussion on the talk page for the article. What is the next step? Oh, by the way, I checked 114.31.218.104's user talk page and found a warning. Can one assume that he/she is aware of the warning? Thanks again for any and all assistance! Ailemadrah (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the IP is aware of the warning, but the only way to know for sure is to see if they respond to it or delete it. You may also want to leave a message on their talk page inviting them to the article talk page using the Talkback function.

The next step would be for discussion leading to a consensus on the article talk page, while the article is locked. If you and Koshihikari agree on the content, and the IP doesn't join the discussion, then that will be the established consensus. At that point, you can request that the page be unprotected, or wait until the protection expires 10 days from now, and introduce the consensus content. If the IP then reverts the article, they are not only edit warring, but also editing tendentiously, and should be reported to WP:EW/N.- Mr X 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mr. X! I've done both things you recommended: inviting the IP into the discussion using Talkback and adding my own comment to the talk page, agreeing with Koshihikari's content. So I guess we all have to wait now to see if the IP responds, correct? Ailemadrah (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Since the IP has consistently taken no longer than ½ day to revert, and usually reverts within a few hours, I would expect them to participate in the discussion in a similar time frame, assuming that they are editing in good faith and are here to improve the encyclopedia.- Mr X 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 24 hours and the IP has not responded. Would it be appropriate to now ask that the page be unprotected? I do believe that the IP is not editing in good faith, and I would not be at all surprised if his/her response is to revert again, at which point we would have proof of a tendentious edit. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can try, but you might find admins reluctant to unprotect it so soon. You can ask the admin who protected it (Ged UK), or you can post a request at WP:RPP.- Mr X 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. X. I'm sorry to bother you again about this issue, but the IP has again reverted, which according to your definition above, constitutes tendentious editing. This happened yesterday, after a week of edit protection on the Good Luck Flag page and after Koshihikari replaced the IP's unsourced content with the consensus sourced content. I sent the following message to Ged UK, who put the edit protection on the article:

Hello again, Ged UK. The IP has reverted again, within hours of Koshihikari putting in the consensus sourced content. Mr. X told me that if this happened, it would be considered a tendentious edit that should be reported to WP:EW/N. Should Koshihikari or I make this report, or is it something that is handled by an admin like yourself? Ailemadrah (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not heard back from Ged UK, and it pains me to see the unsourced content damaging the article again. Both Koshihikari and I are eager to see the consensus content reinstated and to have the IP prevented from further reverting. Should one of us make the report to WP:EW/N, or would it be better to wait for Ged UK's response? Also, how long does it usually take for a determination to be made that an editor should be blocked from making further edits? I noticed on the IP's contributions page that his/her first edit was to add the words "dishonest fraud" to a BLP, which was tagged as possible vandalism and removed - this appears to show a pattern of biased editing. Many thanks, and apologies again for taking up your time with this! Ailemadrah (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unlocked yesterday. I'm going to report the IP to WP:EW/N.- Mr X 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VERY much! Ailemadrah (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the IP is now blocked from editing. Is it therefore permissible to reinstate the consensus content? Ailemadrah (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless someone has objected on the article talk page, it's appropriate to reinstate the content. In all liklihood, the IP will simply revert it again when their block expires, so you will probably have to report it to WP:EW/N at that time.- Mr X 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus content is now reinstated, with no objections. I understand that we may have more work to do to get the IP to stop reverting, but it's a relief - if only a temporary one - to see the correct content displayed. Thank you again for all your help, which has been absolutely invaluable! Ailemadrah (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Mr. X, thank you so much for your ongoing help in keeping unsourced POV content out of Good Luck Flag! I just wanted you to know how much your wisdom, quick responses, and persistence are appreciated. Ailemadrah (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ailemadrah: I'm honored by your kind words.- Mr X 16:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. X. Well, much to my amazement, the IP has reverted again! And this time he/she has added groundless defamatory comments about the founders of OBON 2015. I reported this on WP:EW/N under your previous report. Several hours have passed and no admins have yet replaced the unsourced POV content with the consensus sourced content. Can you help once again? I'm really sorry to have to keep bothering you, but this IP is clearly a tough case. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reported it to an archived page, so it will not be acted on. You may want to raise this issue at WP:ANI since the edit warring is long term and the IP user seems to refuse to engage in discussion. An admin is not needed to revert the IP's edit—anyone can do it, and should if it does not represent consensus. Of course, be sure not to edit war yourself.- Mr X 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr. X! I did revert the IP's edit to the consensus content, thereby also removing the defamatory comments. I also emailed Oversight about the situation. And I promise I won't get into an edit war! Your sage advice is deeply appreciated, as always!! Ailemadrah (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. X. The IP has reverted again, and has again added the defamatory personal attack. This is ridiculous and really does need to be stopped. What are the appropriate next steps? I don't want to be drawn into an edit war. Ailemadrah (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bish took care of it by blocking the IP for a month. I agree that semi-protection of the article is not a great solution because there is only one disruptive IP, and it would unfair to cast such a wide net making it difficult for other IPs to edit the article. The block lengths for 114.31.218.104 will just have to escalate, which will have the effect of minimizing the disruption.- Mr X 12:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always! This clarifies for me why blocking is a better solution, though having to check for further reverts after each block expires will be somewhat nerve-wracking. This does bring up a more basic question: at what point does behavior like 114.31.218.104's trigger a permanent total block on editing? The only edits 114.31.218.104 has done are: first, a personal attack violating BLP policy; second, an edit war in which 114.31.218.104 constantly replaced sourced material with unsourced material; and third, an escalation of the edit war to include another unsourced attack against the same person attacked in the BLP edit. I do understand that Wikipedia strives to maintain the attitude that all editors are potentially interested in improving the encyclopedia and should be encouraged to behave constructively - but 114.31.218.104's behavior seems to me so unremittingly hostile and so unlikely to change that I'm surprised more can't be done to stop it permanently. Ailemadrah (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP users are treated with a little more patience than registered users when it comes to blocking. You can read more here: WP:IPBLENGTH. This IP's next block will probably be around six months long, especially since they have made no other constructive edits. Next time the IP starts up you can go directly to Bish since she will be familiar with the case.- Mr X 23:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Informisani's talk page.
Message added 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Revell[edit]

Just a quickie, I thought a claim of being in a national football team was good enough to clear A7. I've changed it to a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know.- Mr X 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Foxx honorary doctorate[edit]

You asked for a source for the addition to John Foxx's entry that he is being given an honorary doctorate by Edge Hill University. Here is the source:

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/news/2014/06/edge-hill-university-reveals-honorary-degree-recipients-ahead-2014-graduations/

Please add the sentence back.

R Witts

Thanks for finding the source. I've added the content back in, with some copy editing.- Mr X 02:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New vote, old business[edit]

Hey, I am writing to thank you for your recent edit to the AfD I started almost a month ago on The Christmas Doll. I've been finding that after the first week, it is generally hard to get anyone interested in a deletion discussion on either side, and it takes someone with an interest in finishing up old business to bother to check the older but still open discussions and weigh in on them so that they can finally be closed. You saw, I assume, that this one had been relisted three times with no new votes, and still was in need of at least one more opinion. I think that having yours now means that a closing admin can feel a consensus has been reached and the discussion can be wrapped up. I hate old business. Thank you for helping make it go away! Much appreciated, sir. KDS4444^Talk 03:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome KDS4444. I'm glad I could help.- Mr X 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your help regarding Tesla discussions[edit]

The RfC will resolve the question of the proposed content change. If anyone disagrees with the RfC closing, they can ask for a review at ANI.- Mr X 02:30, 5 July 2014 (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 ask of you to help with procedural proceeding regarding Tesla's discussions. I wanted to wait for Director, as more experienced editor, however, a long time has passed and I think the discussion had finished. You also have been helpful regarding those discussions and posted several helpful comments on my talk page, so I decided to ask your help. Is it ok to make the edit, since there are no reasonable objections and the sources are quite clear, or should i give credit to unfounded objections and initialize WP:DR? Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested closure of the RfC here. The reason it hasn't been closed yet is because editors such as yourself keep commenting. Ideally, editors would make one succinct argument and move on, but unfortunately that hasn't occurred, so I don't know when the RfC will be resolved. You can not make the edit about Tesla's birthplace/homeland until and unless the RfC is closed with a conclusion that there is consensus to do so. Consensus rules over everything here, other than a few Wikimedia Foundation policies.

The RfC is a form of dispute resolution. If you mean Dispute resolution noticeboard, that would not be appropriate because there are too many users who have already participated in the RfC, and so far, consensus clearly does not support the Tesla birthplace/homeland change. Also, the dispute resolution noticeboard is not compulsory, nor is it binding.- Mr X 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that consensus will be reached. I will briefly explain the situation from my point of view. I presented numerous sources in support of my claim. Some other people have also presented some sources which also support my suggestion. There had been no sources presented to dispute my suggestion. We have a bunch of unfounded objections, and if we dismiss them, there is not a single valid objection. For me, the conclusion of the RfC has been reached. What do you suggest for the next step towards resolving this issue? Asdisis (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. First, there seems to be a strong consensus to omit your proposed edit. Second, your assertion that "There had been no sources presented to dispute my suggestion." is false. I plainly presented numerous primary and secondary sources that state that Tesla was born in Serbia, Austria, Montenegro, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austrian Croatia, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Croatia. The next step toward resolving the issue is to wait for the RfC to be closed.- Mr X 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. There had been no valid objection. I do not think that we can regard unfounded objections as a consensus. Mind the fact that those objections directly contradict reliable sources, and are not supported by any source. I refined your sources and you had not objected. Sources that mention any other country than Austrian Empire (Austro-Hungary) had been disregarded. I also made a summary of the sources listed in the article which are referenced and used to write the article. Those sources support my suggestion. After the RfC is closed with the "consensus" that disregards all of the presented source, what would be the next step towards resolving this dispute? Asdisis (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (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.

Tesla dispute[edit]

I'm sorry for posting again. I see that you closed the previous plea for help. You message is somewhat unclear. I do not understand why you closed my previous plea.I know we have a disagreement, however that does not mean you can't help me with the process. You help would be much appreciated. If you are not willing to help me, just state that clearly and I will find someone who is. I do not know what should closing my previous plea mean. Maybe its my fault since we started to discuss about content dispute. If that is the case, I apologize. I just answered your comments and we went the wrong way. I just wanted a help with the process from a more experienced editor. You mentioned the review at ANI. Could you further explain that process or give some reference. As I have understood we should do according to WP:DR and choose one of suggested processes. Could you explain what would be the best solution. Should I, or can I initialize formal mediation? Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was not clear. You have to wait until the RfC is closed, then if you disagree with the result, you can post a request for review at WP:AN (or WP:AN/I) asking that the community review the closure (example). Essentially, this creates an RfC about the RfC, and the wider community will determine the appropriate outcome through consensus. Once that's done, there is no higher venue of appeal.- Mr X 12:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And who is to determine the result of the RfC? I wrote my conclusion. One more question. Should we use formal mediation as suggested here WP:DR. Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved admin or experienced editor can close the RfC. No, you should not use formal mediation. The RfC will determine consensus and settle the content dispute.- Mr X 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MrX, for your ping. Also, thank you very much for your excellent sourcing in the various boxes. They illustrated to me that "getting your way" when writing on any topic can be achieved when you are the lead author of the book or article. Thus we have the many variations of birthplace description. But WP does not have a lead author or editor-in-chief, so no one gets their way; which leads me to one more comment: @Asdisis: you should look at WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures before going to the ANI. This says you should contact me about the closure. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Srich32977, and thanks for closing the RfC.- Mr X 18:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi, I am new user of Wikipedia and English is my second language so forgive me my questions and possible mistakes. Recently I transfered the article about Smart Specialisation and I wrote in the footnotes that it came from other website (I am one of its admins). Then I get message from you that a tag has been placed on Smart Specialisation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Now I see that it has already been deleted. I am confused because this article on external website has creative commons logo. Apart from that, I sent an e-mail ([email protected])with permission from the author to use his article and left OTRS pending on the article talk page (as it is written in the instruction). So can you explain me why this article has been deleted? What did I do wrong? I will be very grateful for the answer. - Agnieszka Dudka

Although the content that you copied from http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/encyclopaedia/what-s3-means-for-european-regions-different-forms-of-smart-specialisation.html is licensed under creative commons, it not freely licensed for commercial use, making it incompatible with Wikipedia. Wikipedia content must be freely licensed, including commercial use. I did not see an OTRS pending message on the talk page when I nominated the article for deletion. An admin (Secret deleted the article, and presumably agreed with my reasoning. If you are donating previously published content, you should get permission through OTRS before adding the content to Wikipedia.- Mr X 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the answer. So if I put proper Creative Commons licence under the article on external website and then again transfer the article on wikipedia, everything will be fine? - Agnieszka Dudka

Yes, if you put a compatible license notice on your webpage, then the content can be added to Wikipedia. I recommend also including a statement in the edit summary, when you create the article. Something like: "Creating article using CC-BY-SA and GFDL freely licensed content" so that page reviewers know that the content is not a WP:COPYVIO.- Mr X 11:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! - Agnieszka Dudka

Hello, I again received automated message from CorenSearchBot about copyrights. Should I worry about this? Under the article on the external website there is proper Creative Commons logo and I left in edit summary information you suggested. Should I do something more? - Agnieszka Dudka

It looks like someone has already taken care of it, so everything is good.- Mr X 01:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla birthplace revision[edit]

I thought that the RfC only established that Croatia should not explicitly be mentioned. I still think that the present construct has double meanings, that's why I started the discussion so I invite you to join. Asdisis (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm

The RfC has clearly determined that we are keeping the current wording. You really should move on and let this go. SPA users who edit tendentiously, or who disruptively try to make points as you have done here usually end up blocked or banned. I don't want to see this happen to you, so please find some other way to contribute to this project other than wasting our time with your obsession with Tesla's nationality. Thank you.- Mr X 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only good intentions. I recently joined Wikipedia and its normal that I start with one "project". I do not think that I'm obsessed with Tesla's nationality, I only participated in the discussions regarding his birthplace. The edits I have done follow the decisions of the RfC and ANI. I suggest we continue of the discussion page. I think that there will be a general consensus for suggested edit. I also noted someone's warning that I was bludgeoning so I will correct that. Asdisis (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the warnings, I will study them in detail. You mentioned SPA. I would like to note that, although I had strong point of view, I accepted the decisions of ANI. I do not think that my acts have a common purpose. For instance the purpose was to establish Tesla's birthplace, and that was done. I respect the ANI although I had a different point of view. However, the decision of ANI leads to some other edits I tried to implement, for instance removing the reference to "Serbs of Croatia", and starting the discussion there referencing the decision of ANI. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there![edit]

We thought you might be interested in WikiProject Notability. Please join the WikiProject and help us to clear the backlog of articles.

I have noticed you participate in several AfD's and I think you would be a great help for this project. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll join and see if I can help a little.- Mr X 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to WP:QC[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Marketing[edit]

I don't know exactly what you did about the review of this article. It looked fine when I reviewed it. I've nominated the article for AFD to see if it's worthy of inclusion, though. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I unreviewed it so that it would stay in the NPP queue so that other editors could look at it. It looked like a fairly new company, and most of the sources were not very reliable in my opinion. For example, this one is a press release. It's probably not a candidate for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 because it has several sources, but you did the right thing by nominating it to AfD.- Mr X 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Hope Rehab Center Thailand[edit]

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hope Rehab Center Thailand, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I'm new to wiki[edit]

Corrected, please look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_mixing_service

Yes, that seems better. You should not use external links in the text and the article could benefit from more secondary sources.- Mr X 21:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

نھێنیی كریسمس[edit]

I've declined your speedy deletion nomination for نھێنیی كریسمس. Although I cannot read Kurdish I doubt it's vandalism, and the page is currently listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I think it's vandalism because some of the translated text overlaps with The Christmas Mystery, except for the infobox, templates, reference section heading and categories which are inexplicably in English. The entire article was created with one edit. I've seen many such new articles where a user ran an existing enwiki article through a machine translator and posted it as a new article, which if course is clearly vandalism.- Mr X 11:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for the explanation. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across the article and I beg to differ. Posting articles in other languages than English is not vandalism. While it is not desirable we'll have to live with it, and many of those pages may even be speedily deleted as duplicates of existing articles. But vandalism is something entirely different. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with what vandalism is, and while I may be wrong in this case, my experience at NPP led me to conclude that this was likely vandalism. As I've explained before, there are vandals who machine translate existing English articles into other languages and then post as new articles. That's vandalism. Translating portions of this article revealed portions of another existing article. Did anyone stop to consider why a someone who speaks Kurdish would post an article about a Norwegian book to English Wikipedia?

As an aside, I'm strongly against allowing non-English articles to be posted to article space. It's not a scratchpad and we don't have to live with it, we just choose to.- Mr X 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that while Wikipedia does come in many language-specific editions, a lot of people in developing countries are definitely not aware of the fact that there's also a Wikipedia in their native language. Search engine results in their place will most likely come up with the English WP as the first hit, and that's why they keep posting articles in other languages here — and that includes machine translation from existing stuff to have an article in Kurdish, Tamil, and whatnot. Vandalism, however, requires editing in bad faith or simply juvenile silliness for that matter like posting "poo" all over a page; and in the several years I've been involved at WP:PNT I've seen only a handful of pages in a different language than English that really didn't match the test of good faith editing. And most of those were actually outright spam. Putting up machine translations might have become a sport for a few vandals but I'm not aware of such a phenomenon. Anyhow, I appreciate your watchful eyes at NPP, but next time please just try to assume good faith. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't CSD such articles for vandalism unless the translated article is unambiguously from enwiki (which I have seen a few times in the past six months, although I admit, this article is on the fringe of unambiguous).- Mr X 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-cellent work![edit]

About the "Ali Sameer (Singer)" article. Let me know if you think there should be an SPI. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shirt58, I will.- Mr X 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Day&Night redirect[edit]

Hi, I saw you changed this article to redirect, but maybe it would be better to remove that page, so it would be easy to create one for someone? The redirect could make a little mess for newbie user. Regards --Lethern (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the EP Becomes notable and reliable sources can be found, then the article can be recreated by overwriting the redirect. Feel free to nominate it for deletion though if you think that's best.- Mr X 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Non-Deletion[edit]

Hello there, Re: the page for Troy Henley (biography), I've received your message of Proposed Deletion due to no reliable source / references. I've since added 4 references and at least 1 is from an online magazine publication. Not sure what more needs to be added or where, but am requesting for non-deletion of this page.

Thanks for adding sources. It looks like someone removed the proposed deletion notice yesterday, so it will not be deleted for lacking references. It is possible that someone may nominate it for deletion if they believe it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NHOCKEY.- Mr X 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threston (surname)[edit]

I noticed in the History of the article, that you requested a speedy deletion of it on July, 7th, then made up your mind. What was the purpose for both your actions? I want to inform you, that there are some discussions now about the so called "Zoransky‎/Threston Walled Garden" and provide you with some links for it.

I started the discussion on enWP by bringing up a AfD-Discussion from the German WP to the English one.
Choess started a sockpuppet investigation because of that.
LagondaDK put together some thoughts about this case on his User talk.

Right now most of the Zoransky & Theston articles (and the picture of a "Zoransky coat of arms" on commons) are on AfD, with exception of Joseph T. Threston, which is not inside the "walled garden" (IEEE Simon Ramo Medal links to the article) and does not include the work of users under suspicion of belonging to the "sockpuppets". So maybe you know something not mentioned yet, because of your initial suspicion, which you reversed on second thought.--Susumu (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something is up. When I searched for some of the refs in the article, I found a source that listed most of the same refs. This led me to believe that the article was a copyvio, but on further inspection of the source, it seemed that the content originated from Wikipedia. This led me to assume that the article was recreated after a previous CSD or AfD, but I couldn't find any evidence of a previous article.

I will look at the information that you provided and see if I can shed any further light on the matter.- Mr X 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion needs community input[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:CMD.EXE#Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe. Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! School: Love On[edit]

A heads up as I've removed the prod from Hi! School: Love On, as it is now a redirect. I didn't know it existed and created Hi! School-Love On, the hyphened version of the name being the prefered ones at ko and zh wiki. You may feel the need to add the prod to the new article.--KTo288 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know.- Mr X 03:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of most powerful production cars[edit]

Hey MrX! Seeing that you patrolled List of most powerful production cars, what are your thoughts on it? I think this page is not important and is Wikipedia:Listcruft, also their is already List of automotive superlatives. Opinions? ///EuroCarGT 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EuroCarGT. Yes, I agree. It almost certainly fails WP:LISTN. It should probably be PRODed or AfDed.- Mr X 19:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krill oil - is it really edit war?[edit]

Hi Mr. X. during the last two days, I notice high "action" in the "krill oil" wiki page (as you can see by yourself). Starting from complete deletion of scientific results and replacing with inappropriate marketing material from not reliable source, and link which was suspect as promospamand. During the day I was talking on the chat help page with several editors guiding me how to act. Based on their recommendations, I inviting the 9kat into the discussion using Talkback and also added my own comment to his talk page as well as on Krill oil talk. In addition I rephrase/removed some of his concerned Copyvio (which i do not agree that are copyvio... but can understand his concern). later on today, I notice that you as well, removed the corrected version, saying that: "There is still some close paraphrasing in this content. Also, it's overly detailed and somewhat promotional". for your comments i have some concerns: 1) The deletion of first paragraph resulted in misleading and mistake (there is nothing as: "antioxidant experimental egg products[clarification needed] with krill oil likely contained astaxanthin..."). 2) As a scientist, when I look into results of clinical studies, some specific details are very important. like the type of the clinical study, number of subjects, and treatment groups, to help me validate the academic level and the reliability of the results. Anyway i don't think that these details are violation or not acceptable in wiki. 3)I can not see any promotional issues (no brand was mentioned, link to companies webs, exc.)and the close rephrasing are not pointing to any commercial product/s.

Therefore, I am asking you to re-consider the action of complete revert. In addition, I would be happy to work close with you and together update the term "krill oil" to be suitable, providing the highest quality and scientific level for the public uses wiki.

best, JoKa2014 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Joka2014[reply]

I am happy to discuss the content on the article talk page. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the content is too detailed and seems to have somewhat of a promotional bias. Of course, the multiple close paraphrasing needed to be removed per WP:COPVIO. You should also be aware that editing with a WP:COI can be very problematic. (Redacted) [Oversight redaction A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)] Mr X 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. MrX, please be more considerate to new users with your use of Twinkle to revert changes. Your revert to this article not only removed the material that you objected to, but also removed a considerable amount of obvious improvements, from a number of users, that had been removed in the /previous/ mass reverts, and restored at the same time. Your use of the revert button, as opposed to making substantive edits to the article (even if they are to remove material) is not helping to defuse the situation, and made the edit history of the article even more confused. Twinkle's revert feature should generally not be used to revert good faith edits, even if an edit summary was given, especially if the objection was only to part of the edit. @Joka2014: is fairly obviously trying to act in good faith, is very new, and there has already recently been a 'six month' revert to the article. Discussion is in order for all parties, including him, and gradual changes to the article, not large changes and reverts, and the removed non-objectionable improvements need to be readded before 'anyone' tries to make more changes. Thanks. Revent^talk 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revent. I did not intend to be inconsiderate, however there were serious issues causing me to support 9kat's edits. On further investigation, it looks like they did actual revert to an earlier version than I originally thought. Feel free to revert me to whatever version you think is appropriate and we can work from there.- Mr X 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the articles talk page (and as you probably saw on the history) I didn't actually do a 'revert', explicitly, but instead (somewhat wasted) quite a bit of time going through the history of the article since before the revert...which basically meant looking at the entire article (and finding another copyvio). What I did readd about the 'difference' was the chemical part, since it appeared to be purely factual information. The original version of that paragraph was actually a copyvio added by an IP editor, but had then been rewritten and expanded by JoKa, and so (other than one sentence that was largely unchanged) was not longer a copyvio. I suspect the given sources at the beginning actually support the rest of the sentence, but they are paywalled from me.

Regarding the list of 'benefits', I was actually pretty skeptical about putting them back in, but the sources given were all Medline-indexed journals, and they did actually say in the abstract that krill oil was helpful, so I didn't really feel I could justify leaving them out. Instead, I tried to be as specific as I could about exactly what it was said to be beneficial for, without any interpretation. Since it's pretty accepted that omega-3 itself is helpful, and krill oil contains it, it seems reasonable to say 'a number of studies have indicated....' since it's a very specific claim, and doesn't actually say 'it is a fact that...'. Revent^talk 19:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to improve the article Revent. I think it looks much better.- Mr X 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the 'positive feedback'. It was explicitly not my intent to get involved in 'actively editing' anything (other than digging up some sources for the GRAS, as the other text in that location wasn't usable, and the bare statement about 'toxic residues' seemed unbalanced) but to do as much as I could to restore what others had done with as little 'interference' as possible. It seemed the best way to short circuit any edit warring, or at least reboot it from a reasonably clean version. Hopefully that's what I accomplished. Also, to be very oblique, please consider any needed apology made. Revent^talk 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I apologize for barging in on your talk page, but I've had to redact some of your comments. Please see my note on the Krill Oil talk page or contact me using email for more information. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sorry for the faux pas.- Mr X 23:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Hey MrX. Would you be willing to return to the AN/I regarding PS171? Me and PS171 are stuck in a circular argument and I think a third voice would be extremely beneficial. Thank you. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 20:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to join in when I have a little more time.- Mr X 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center page. The information you seemed to present is outdated. You state that the SPLC holds a relationship with the FBI. This is no longer true as the FBI has dropped it, and no longer maintain an official relationship with the SPLC. I suggest you visit the official FBI website, it was because it was left wing centered where it would label Christian organizations as "hate groups," thus they were drpped.

Precious[edit]

X-cellenz
Thank you, editor with the simple goal "to help expand this global repository of free information" and "ever-vigilant crusader against vandalism, spam, misinformation and incivility", for quality articles on places and "unclassifed" such as 1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg, for welcoming, warnings and bonus points, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda for the kind recognition. I'm heartened to know that someone has taken time to read my micro-manifesto. All the best.- Mr X 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my pleasure. You are welcome to read mine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. By the way, I am big proponent of infoboxes, and huge proponent of metadata and microformats.- Mr X 22:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know where you can help? Here. Because. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	HEy why are you deleting my article ?? RishabhBollywoodKhazana (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated it. An admin will delete it as they did the first four times it was created. Please read the linked tutorials in the welcome message at the top of your user talk page. That will explain our purpose, policies and guidelines. To answer your question a little more directly: because Wilikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a platform for promoting your company, your web site, or yourself. Best.- Mr X 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 11:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrX. You have new messages at Jprg1966's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, MrX/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:11, 14 August 2014 (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.

--Mdann52talk to me! 12:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson matter[edit]

Long time no see! How have you been? I got drawn to the page after the help request went off with that copy vio picture that someone wanted to add to the article. We need more good eyes on this page and I'll be away for awhile - so I'll be looking for your good judgement on this in the coming week! Cheers to working with you again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. Sorry about the confusion. I have commented in the correct section now. I'm glad to see you're working on the article as well!- Mr X 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't have much time to re-format something I expect to be so contested. I do value your insight into the title matter. Its not time to codify it in the MOS, but I do note that the lack of many GA and FA articles dealing with such topics signify a compelling, but not overwhelming argument. I think everyone agreed on the overly specific title though, but yes, my change was equally bold - but not without reason. The Martin incident was one which got a bit too hot when both sides said I was "POV pushing", but Gaijin and a handful of others stayed the course. Hope you like my compelling argument though. NRHP and civic buildings, parks and etc. are ever so peaceful on Wikipedia. Just me and 'dem crickets. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. I'm always open to debating content issues, and learning better ways to do things. You've definitely given me some food for thought. Happy editing!- Mr X 02:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Nicaragua Earthquake[edit]

Hi MrX, such, I have seen that did not exist in this Wikipedia article even had pages citing this if exist. I created this article because there was no about the earthquake and I thought it is quite useful to have an article about this in English, the truth is that I speak Spanish and am a native of Nicaragua, but until our Atlantic coast is widely spoken English, so that an article like this in English would be very useful for both population and Global National. Sorry if I do not write good English, have not so advanced ;)

Any content that is added to articles must be verifiable in reliable sources. You added a lot of content to the article, but you did not CITE and reliable sources, so I removed the content. Please use magazines, news web sites and newspapers for any information that you add to articles, and used footnote citations to document where you found the information.- Mr X 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perry[edit]

Since you reverted all of my edits to the Rick Perry article without even attempting to discuss my edits on the talk page. I have reported you to the BLP notice board. You removed notable information that was supported in NPOV manner and with a reliable source, but you just reverted blindly. Please stop editing in that manner.--NK (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I added new content last night, and then I reverted you exactly once here. You, on the other hand, have reverted other editor's edits three times in the past ~8 hours. Tell me again who's edit warring?- Mr X 21:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song Ga-yeon[edit]

I've declined your G4 nomination of Song Ga-yeon. The new version is much more focused on MMA, and has a good reliable source that wasn't previously available that provides a big push towards notability. I'm not saying her article passes WP:GNG, but there are some foreign language google news hits that look promising, which combined with the English language source Korean Times is enough that I think it should go back through AFD for deletion. Feel free to nominate it if you like. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know.- Mr X 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa 'Charles Austin'[edit]

What is wrong with the article? I made it similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_%27Abraham_Darby%27 with the same amount of citations, references etc? Cronwood (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I tagged the article is because the sources are not ideal for demonstrating notability.

helpmefind.com is a TERTIARY source. It's usable as a source, but doesn't carry a lot of weight for showing notability.
davesgarden.com is mostly self published and also a tertiary source in this case.
pacifichorticulture.org seems to be a pretty good source.
Austin, David (1992) Old Roses and English Roses is a closely connected source for obvious reasons.

I have no comment on the other article because it has no bearing on the article that you created. Feel free to remove the cleanup templates if you think that's best.- Mr X 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I asked because I wanted to learn and improve. Please bear in mind, however, that for cultivars (roses, etc.) it is somewhat difficult to avoid closely connected sources as most of the data on cultivars are published by breeders (producers, sellers, distributors) on their commercial pages. To avoid referencing to them I had to use tertiary (helpmefind and others) sources. I do share your sentiments about davesgarden.com.

Generally, I would expand your comments into a general question: Are plant cultivars notable? I found 67 articles on rose cultivars in wikipedia, so I presumed they are and added two more. There are probably couple of thousands pending.

Anyway, thank you for your comments and help. --Cronwood (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't think that all cultivars would be notable, but many would be. It really comes down to general notability (WP:GNG). You may also want to ask the fine folks at WP:WPHORT.- Mr X 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated quotes in refnames[edit]

I take it you were unable to find anything in writing on this. Is it normal to deprecate something and not indicate that on the help pages? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I vaguely remember that was on a page listing citation examples, or possibly somewhere on mediawiki.org? If you can't find it, I recommend boldly updating the guidelines anyway, because it only makes sense. Deprecating normally comes from community consensus like everything else. I think what might have happened here is that mediawiki was updated to not require quotations, but nobody bothered to update the guidelines.- Mr X 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it only makes sense - Well, here's the discussion I had with the other editor. Maybe you've seen him around, he registered in 2004 and is approaching one million edits. Apparently he didn't get the memo. I don't think I'm that bold, considering. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's been around. Unfortunately his arguments in that discussion don't hold much water. MediaWiki should be able accommodate spaces anyway. Everything between <ref name= and > after striping off leading and trailing spaces is the name. Simple.- Mr X 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

his arguments in that discussion don't hold much water - Yeah, and that's what he and those who agree with him say about our arguments. Hence the fatal flaw in consensuses by word of mouth (or even written consensuses that only certain editors know about). I'll never understand how this system, if you dare to call it a system, could ever be expected to work. Sigh.
I tested <ref name=WashPost Even>, here. As you can see, it simply dropped the ref and didn't even throw an error. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper etiquette to use in undoing an inappropriate edit?[edit]

Hi Mr. X,

I've been making occasional edits to the article on James Beard, and I just saw that another editor recently changed the American spellings in the article to British spellings. This strikes me as inappropriate, since Beard was American. Should I just "undo" those edits, or is there a more polite way to make the change back to American spellings? And if I do just "undo," will I be able to explain my reasoning in the edit history? BTW, this editor doesn't have a user page or user talk page, but does have a user name. Ailemadrah (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would revert it, citing WP:ENGVAR. You can use Twinkle to welcome the editor and/or post a uw-lang on their talk page.- Mr X 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr. X, I reverted and cited WP:ENGVAR, then posted a uw-lang on the editor's talk page. Ailemadrah (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to do[edit]

I think you'll know who I'm talking about, so no need to identify him by username. He's losing it and needs a block, and the sooner the better for his sake. I tried to reason with him on his talk page, and all I got in response was more incoherent rambling. I can totally empathize with him, since I've been there (long before Wikipedia existed) and I'm intimately familiar with the signs. I lack the experience to know what to do at this point.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should drop a uw-chat4 on his talk page, and if the disruption continues, report it to ANI. He has been politely warned several times already.- Mr X 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, let me give him the warning. I see you have already tried to intervene a while ago.- Mr X 01:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination to delete LEMUSIQUE (Andrea Temmeli Jr.)[edit]

I am new at contributing to Wikipedia. This is the first article. I interviewed Ms. Temmeli for The Columbus Ledger-Inquirer myself years back, and I received word that she received the VP appointment before it will go to the Associated Press next week. I am not sure how to do sources. For example, I have talked to her present and previous clients to validate an article that was written on her recently after the BET Awards 2014 in Chicago, and all statements were validated. I referenced what I could from online research. I wasn't sure how to reference written articles that are not online or verbal interviews. I think this would help with the referenced documentation. What must be done to keep this page up as it is relevant to many in the music industry. She also has a following of 1.2 million people on Facebook (I Discover Stars) I would say that makes her pretty significant worldwide in the world of music. I appreciate any assistance. (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2014

Hi payroll.npr and welcome to Wikipedia. The reason why I nominated the article for deletion is because I could not find any reliable sources (newspapers, news web sites, books, magazines, journals). If you are able to find some sources like these, the article will be able to be kept. Do you know of any? You mentioned an article written about her after the BET awards. That may help. An interview can be used, as long as it was published by a reliable source such as a news agency. Is this the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer article that you're referring to. If so, it seems to be a pretty trivial mention. You will need at least 2-3 sources that discuss the subject in some detail. I hope that helps.- Mr X 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr X for the warm welcome It does help. This was one article, but it was also on the news as well. There was also another article in 1998 for Gospel Thunder, and a Proclamation was received for that event. She has done quite a bit. The Chicago magazine that did the article was http://www.justmemagazine.com/ it was published on July 8th. I went to their site and I am not sure how to pull up the archives. But I did source the magazine advertisement that I found on Facebook about the article in the original article I wrote. A colleague, Milton Davis, had her on a radio show recently as well with SILK after the BET Awards as well. I found information about that at I found 2 more: http://yooying.com/p/751361320539503936_203468694 and there was also an mtv entry at http://www.mtv.com/artists/lemusique/

there is the PRess release that happens Monday or Tuesday, based on the interview I just did with Quayshaun.

I will look up other sources. QUESTION: How much time do I have to accomplish this?

(P.S. That newsbank is awesome. I will definitely being using that in the future!) (talk)

Deletion discussions run for at least 7 days. You can learn more here: WP:GTD. Good luck!- Mr X 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now there is a new issue - it says that the page is an orphan. There are related pages - how do I like those to the article? (talk)

Don't worry about the orphan warning. It's not very important. WP:LINK will explain how to create links.- Mr X 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I fixed it though. Thank you for your advice. Can you review the page? I took out some redundancies, and some verbiage that i had used from a source that was irrelevant. I also reference more external links, and added the Chicago mag resource as well. Is this enough to remove the AFD? user: payroll.npr user talk:payroll.npr (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but those references don;t seem to discuss the subject in any detail. justmemagazine.com does not seem to be a reliable source.

Also, there is content that is not sourced at all, such as

She was tested as a small child for a newly established gifted program in New York City called the Astor Program and it was discovered that she was one of 32 children her age in that area with an above-average IQ – hers was at the genius level. She participated in the program starting at age 4 and continued till High School. Though accepted to Brooklyn Tech and nationally known High School of Performing Arts for singing, she attended Friends Academy in Locust Valley, NY with some of New York’s most notable families.

This is very promotional, especially without sources.

I'm sorry, but the article still doesn't seem to meet our minimal notability standards.- Mr X 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply[reply]

That was discovered in an interview with her mother in 1998 that did not make an article but was in archived notes from a fellow reporter. That can be removed, youre right it's not relevant in the scheme of things. I thought it was good to put information like that about people, this is very different than a newspaper article I see. This lady has done quite a lot and is doing a lot, and I find it hard to comprehend that its not enough just because she was behind the scenes until recently.

What are the minimal notability standards? How do I look those up?

Thank you for your assistance. Payroll.npr (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO.- Mr X 12:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown shooting[edit]

Hi Mr. X. I would love to work wit you on a new lead for the Brown article. Let's get bold. The old lead was sloppy POV with a lot of weasel words. I'm trying to get to center. Maybe not there yet, but maybe we can work together. What do you think?

Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I'm open to working on a better lede, but you should observe WP:BRD. Please show good faith by reverting yourself and propose your changes on the talk page so that others can weight in. Hundreds of editors have worked very hard to bring the article to where it is now. Many thanks. - Mr X 01:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if two editors hammer out a new lead, there's dozens of other invested editors. The talk page is the best place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. Looks like a Herculean task. I'm a bit out of practice in the politics of WP. I have been super busy and really didn't know much about the Brown incident. I saw a bunch of rhetoric at Face Book today and came to WP for truth. I was horrified to see the lede. I am constantly defending the project and telling people that the beauty of WP is that enough serious people hold line the line against the inaccuracies and POV. I think this needs a higher level of help from a neutral party. I worked for several years as a mediator on some challenging projects. Of course I'm tarnished now, but would like to help/encourage/promote that this article gets strong mediation. My only POV is to eliminate POV for the good of the project. Cheers and best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, what's cookin'? Kevin, I' see you've already posted to the article talk page so we can continue this there.- Mr X 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. X. I saw the ANEW thread and have commented there. Thanks for your patience with this editor of good faith and hard hearing. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good result. Thanks Drmies.- Mr X 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X. I'm not trying to edit war. I thought we were getting somewhere and tried to get the changes that seemed to be agreed upon up on the board. I'm sorry to have offended you. Best! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. You're ignoring everyone and forcing your will into an article that 289 other editors have painstakingly built over the past two weeks. I suggest you revert yourself or you may very well be blocked from editing.- Mr X 03:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you look closely most of what I posted is now based on suggestions made by others at the talk page. Why don't you join me in tweaking that. You might like the result. I won't fuss with anything that is changed from here on, but ask that you edit rather than revert. There is much good there. Sincerley, best regards, and have a pleasant evening. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg[edit]

I see that you added to the image fair use rationale, so please comment at File_talk:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg if you want to weigh in on the speedy deletion tag added to the image. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Did you get any word back from the Travis County Sheriff's Office.- Mr X 01:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roswell UFO incident[edit]

Thank you for your collaborative work on the article Roswell UFO incident. In particular concrete proposals and policy based rationale in discussions. This coupled with a recognition of when others have provided appropriate sources really contributes to moving discussion forward and leads to actual improvements in the encyclopedia. To often talk pages are filled with lengthy unclear, unfocused arguments not focused on content, your contributions provide an example for productive talk page engagement. Thank you for these and all your contributions to Wikipedia. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for your collaborative work as well. I haven't delved deeply into the two historical sources yet, but I have been trying to find similar sources on High Beam and Questia. I hope to rejoin the discussion when I have a little more time. - Mr X 13:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bolding on Michael Brown article[edit]

No problem. I'd just learned about the Manual of style related to bolding and IIRC had changed the edit that you are referring to.

Thanks

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thanks for messaging me for follow up on old discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for the coffee.- Mr X 23:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood gender non-conformity[edit]

You have reverted the reference by the Bearman. The Bearman reference is already being used by the article, and it is a solid reference published on a peer reviewed journal. Why is it not a reliable reference?

Also, why is an interview with J. Michael Bailey an unreliable source? J. Michael Bailey is an American psychologist and professor at Northwestern University who specializes in sexual orientation.

76.88.102.76 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A religious blog citing the work of a professor who advises people who are in agony over being transgender that their desires are not in accord with the Bible, is not a reliable source for a scientific claim. We need to use peer reviewed journals for such claims. If you are able to find any reliable sources, I recommend discussing them on the article talk page.- Mr X 00:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Michael Bailey is the professor who actually answered the question and he is a legitimate source of expertise in the field.
In any case, I would like to add the word "a factor" or "a cause" to the sentence. The Bearman paper clearly states that childhood gender nonconformity is more than a predictor. Even the wiki article itself states, "He says that his findings support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences." If it were just a predictor, then it wouldn't be able to "shape". The paper clearly supports the hypothesis that it is one of the factors.

Please go to the article talk page where I have already started a discussion.- Mr X 01:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ages RFC[edit]

I notice you haven't weighed in on this. Is that because you don't have an opinion on it, or because the originator of an RFC isn't supposed to participate in it? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no restriction on participating in RfCs that one starts. My previously expressed view is that I would prefer to keep ages out of the lead. I was waiting for others to weigh in, to see if their comments might sway me in another direction.- Mr X 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP Policies[edit]

Please don't take this as combative; I'd just like to understand your thoughts a bit more. It seems to me that your interpretation of how AfDs should work would allow these to be used as a tool to freeze an article/section until a ponderous process is perpetuated. It's open to first arguing that not enough time has gone by for comments and secondly there is room to argue for weeks about how to close it. This allows for way too much gaming for my taste. In my mind an RfC is tool to solve a dilemma rather than create several more. Thanks for considering my thoughts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean RfC, not AfD? If there was clear consensus, it would be obvious to everyone as in the "Robbery in lede RFC". Such was not the case with this RfC.

Thanks you are right -- I corrected.--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an emergency. We shouldn't be in a rush to close RfCs as the expense of getting a complete picture of consensus. I explained this at least three times on the talk page. The RfC process works pretty well in my experience, but if you want to reform the process, you're welcome to start a discussion at any number of venues where the community can weight in. It is not appropriate to short circuit a widely-accepted dispute resolution process simply because you think you know better than everyone else.- Mr X 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. However, this was being subverted by a few to postpone the fix of an obvious error. It could be open for 20 years if it wasn't being used as an excuse to freeze-out corrections. My only interest here is to monitor and combat POV issues. I really couldn't care less about the issues. I only care that readers coming to WP leave with respect for the integrity of our message. If I step on fragile toes, so be it. I'm having trouble figuring you out; you seem pretty level headed in your goals, but a slave to some potentially arcane customs and rule-sets. WP is dynamic and flexes to fit the needs of the situation. Be bold and be true to the Project. Cheers!--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. We certainly agree that the WP should flex to the needs of the situation, but I guess we don't always agree on which parts should flex and which parts should be more structured. Anyway, the project is large enough for diverse viewpoints and work styles. I'm sure we each have the same goal in mind, which is what matters most.- Mr X 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X, I'm pleased to see that the lede at Michael Brown has stayed relatively neutral over the last couple of weeks. I hope that all is well with you. Best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello MrX, You may be interested in a discussion going on, on the Extraterrestrial life Talk page? Any comment would be welcome. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look.- Mr X 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ronald S. Johnson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ronald S. Johnson 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/Ronald S. Johnson 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring[edit]

@Mark Miller and Lithistman:

Obviously, the discussion went off the rails, with all of the distractions, accusations, and red herrings. I would like to plan on rebooting this discussion with a more structured approach to prevent editors from taking it off the rails again. Which discussion format would best achieve this goal? RfC, poll, or some kind of other format? Ideally, it would be helpful for a neutral moderator to remove any comments that misdirected the discussion.

So far, we've addressed these points:

Edit warring applies to all users
New users may not be aware of this
Admins don't get special treatment
If admins participate in edit warring, it may give the impression that they are attempting to gain an advantage as admins enforce edit warring. This is a potential COI
Reporting admins for edit warring may have an entirely different outcome than reporting editors (need more data on this; Lithistman and myself have data points on one admin edit warring on two different articles in one week without repercussions)
Does a Blue code exist?

What else am I missing? Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not removing any comments and simply archiving the talk page. That may be a lot better for everyone involved.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but I'm talking about how to deal with these distractions before they occur, in a new, rebooted discussion. For example, an RfC or poll format generally enforces structured threading by position, which has a tendency to lessen the off-topic tangents. Remember, we were talking about modifying the edit warring policy, when all of a sudden the discussion was flooded with cries of "canvassing", "policy creep", and "ulterior motives", none of which have anything to do with the proposal. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why archiving is a good idea as it can be done without much objection. But I think the RFC is the best route to proceed and then do a Village Pump notification for the widest community input.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, if the RFC provides no clear consensus the next step could be, either DRN or formal mediation.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Unfortunately, there is a community-wide blind spot when it comes to discussing how admins are mentioned in policies, and I'm afraid that without further modification, it's not going to go anywhere. The main objection that I keep hearing from admins is that they are no different than other editors, they simply have a different toolset; therefore, policies should refer only to editors unless mentioning the use of said tools. But this proposal isn't discussing the use of the tools but the appearance of having the tools and the perception of admims involved in an edit war, and as MrX points out, this is especially true of new users who might erroneously believe that admins have special content rights. Can you address this problem, Mark? In other words, the counterargument (or the status quo) is that any discussion of admins outside the context of using tools is irrelevant. But the inclusion of such concerns public perception of administrators, not the use of their tools. And public perception has an impact on how successful the policies are; if admins are seen as engaging in edit warring, users are less likely to support them and to support the site as active editors. So this has to do with how admins present themselves. This is especially important in policies like EW, because this is likely to be the first contact between a new user and an admin. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only way to address this is by way of knowing and discussing openly the "Blue Code". Police have to address this as do all functioning groups that rely on any specially selected and elevated position. While many would argue that Admin are not elevated...that is simply absurd. Of course they are. Another argument is that Admin have no authority. Again...absurd. of course they do. Anyone that can stop in the middle of a content dispute and suddenly just block you with the excuse that they told you not to do something is wielding authority. More disturbing is the public shaming used when that admin then states publicly on the article talk page that they just blocked an editor. That's is showing a badge. It tells people that you are there to enforce the rules and that is exactly like brandishing a shiny tin star on your chest and walking around the town sizing people up and down. This is a tough issue to deal with because some don't want this being discussed at all and others go too far when trying to discuss it. While I use your recent block as an example and clearly I am speaking directly about a particular admin, the point is not to just discuss someone for doing something I may disagree with. The issue is partly what the administrators think in regards to themselves and their fellow admin. While admin are not some bloated aristocracy, entitled and given everything handed to them on a silver platter...the unfortunate truth is....many, if not most editors do see them that way. While we do not instruct our editors...we do need to face the fact that there are editors...and there are administrators. Pretending we are all one and the same is taking a blind eye to the issue if not to any particular situation. Editors and administrators are not the same, even if you cannot be an admin without being an editor.

In a recent article I created about a old position called a Konohiki, I have this line:"Often ali'i and konohiki are referenced together however, while most or all konohiki were ali'i nobility, not all ali'i were konohiki." Are admin losing there editor status by becoming admin. No. But do editors have a similar status of admin? Again...no. While much of what happens on Wikipedia is by consensus...a great deal more is by bureaucracy. The situation requires a delicate balancing act and one I think Wikipedia is having a hard time balancing. Since my post is already much too long I will leave it at that for the moment and return later this evening to address more.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RfC with structured sections (support, oppose, threaded discussion) at the policy village pump is the way to go. I like the idea of some level of moderation. Perhaps someone who doesn't frequent ANI like Tokyogirl79 or Anna Frodesiak would be a good candidate for moderator. The proposed change would need to be clearly articulated. I'm would be happy help with wording if you like. I would specifically advise against any discussion of the blue code in an RfC, although I do think it makes for an interesting meta discussion.

I have some experience reporting an admin for edit warring and tendentiousness after failing to get appropriate action at ANEW. This is not dissimilar to what happened to Viriditas. Admins are sometimes held to a lower standard than regular editors. That is a fact. - Mr X 15:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think the way to approach this is not by getting too side tracked by even relevant side discussions and issues. Either Tokyogirl79 or Anna Frodesiak would be excellent moderators and I would very much appreciate if you could draw up something Mr.X. My head is a little clouded at the moment I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to come up with something, but it may have to wait a while. I'm deeply involved with a project IRL.- Mr X 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't be the greatest mod in this instance- I'm getting ready to start up classes in a day and I've been sort of distracted lately in general. (All of those poor AfC people on my talk page- I'm so sorry!) I'll try to keep my eye on it, but it'd probably be better to ask someone who could dedicate a little more attention to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand Tokyogirl79. Thanks for dropping by to let us know. - MrX 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, everyone. I will take all of this into consideration and try to form a Plan B. I already have an idea of how to do this. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I made a comment on a request for arbitration, asking arbcom to discuss the problem.[1] If anyone wants to comment there as an uninvolved party, they are welcome to do so, as the proposed case involves admin(s) edit warring without consequences. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas:I don't think that case about behavior in NRM articles is likely to be a good place to examine an admin's behavior outside of the scope of those articles. If there is a pattern of one or more admins repeatedly violating WP:ADMIN and WP:EW, then RfC/U would be the logical next step.

If there is a widespread issue of admins supporting other admins violating WP:ADMIN and it is supported by a lot of convincing evidence, then I think an ARBCOM case would be productive. I will note that I have not yet formed an opinion that there is a pattern of policy violations on anyone's part. I haven't looked into the matter in any depth, but I would be willing to get involved if someone can lay out a clear, convincing, dispassionate case showing repeated policy violations from any specific admin. Obviously that would take considerable focus, time and effort.- Mr X 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.[edit]

No, I was not blocked for "trolling", I was blocked because they said I violated a topic ban. The frustrating thing about ANI is the ever-increasing tendency to stifle discussion rather than trying to actually resolve open issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest block was a conviction for continued Bigotry at an Arb Enforcement hearing here. Trolling is the underlying issue though. Prior to that, he did manage to avoid a block for socking. Evidently there was not enough evidence for a conviction by the checkuser at SPI Here. 183.224.12.73 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. I have never committed sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs need more input[edit]

Hi.

There are a couple of AfDs the desperately need additional high-quality input, either because they are relisted twice so far or have extremely low inputs so far. I thought it was high time I publicized them. Here they are:

Your input would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]