User talk:MrX/Archive/April-June 2015

About Hugh Elliott Changes
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 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:, 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 . 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, 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
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)

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

But I don't have Photoshop!

 * 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!
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 . Good luck.- MrX 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi How can I send you a message? I am new to wikipedia editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che2on (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions
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 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not common knowledge that million s 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: http://www.phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm. 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?
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. - MrX 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jc caylen
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
Looks like a SPI-check out here: 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
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)
 * 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)

Newspapers.com check-in
Hello MrX,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com 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 Newspapers.com 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 Newspapers.com 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 Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips.
 * 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 Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
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 . I'm glad to help.- MrX 23:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
Ok, I get your message. Instead of edit-warring, I've posted a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well looks like the sock is now recreating talk pages of salted pages
Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Irfaan_Hujra 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
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
Hi,

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. 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)

Hi can you help me up
Hi my edits are been reverted on the article EmDrive can you help me settle this on the talk page: Talk:EmDrive

My edits regarding about the potential of the EmDrive. Thanks.Quantanew (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am already in the discussion. I recommend that you propose smaller edits on the article talk page, with corresponding sources. That will facilitate discussion that should lead to a consensus. Of course, discussion mean listening as well commenting.- MrX 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki labels edit quality
Hi Mrx! You said you were interested in helping us out. Could you sign your name on our campaign page Labels/Edit_quality so that I know to ping you when we're ready to get started? (probably ~24 hours) --EpochFail (talk &bull; contribs) 19:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.- MrX 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * \o/ --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now closed, so I will not be commenting in the mega-RfC. That said, I agree with Darx9url's comment.- MrX 11:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Crossing guards
I don't know where you live but a million years ago where I live I was a school crossing guard and at places where kids had to cross the street to get back and forth to school, I stood on the corner with my arms outstretched to make sure the little twerps didn't step out in front of a concrete mixer. Maybe if you coach your "side" to shut up and I coach my side to do the same, perhaps we can save a few from becoming road pizza.--MONGO 03:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting analogy and proposal, but I'm afraid that I don't accept your premise. I don't view the world in terms of "sides". That paradigm just doesn't resonate with me. - MrX 21:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's odd because my take is that is exactly what you do. Cheers.--MONGO 22:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm listening. Feel free to tell me what you really think.- MrX 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki labels edit quality campaign kickoff.
Hi MrX! We're officially kicking off the Labels campaign for edit quality. You should be able to load the interface by going to Labels and clicking "Install the gadget". Once you've installed the gadget, the "Install the gadget" button will be replaced by the "campaigns" listing where you can request worksets from "Edit quality (20k random sample, 2015)". The software is still a little rough around the edges. We'll be on the look-out for your bug reports & feature requests throughout the week. I'll post progress reports on the campaign talk page. Thanks for your help and let me know if you have any questions. --EpochFail (talk &bull; contribs) 05:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia in Media
Thanks for the assist. I'm new at this and didn't recognize that Ngram reference as original research. It's amazing how fast wiki editors move. Impressive. Most impressive. NumberFiveIsAlive (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia!- MrX 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rolling up the sleeves

 * You're welcome Bink, and thank you for the thoughtful barnstar.- MrX 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Say, MrX, have you ever thought about becoming an admin? You do a lot of work at NPP and your conduct on ANI and arb cases, defusing disputes (I remember your attempts to calm down DangerousPanda) is good. As you were one of the few people to not support my RfA (nothing wrong with that, everyone's free to their own opinions), I think you'd be a good check and balance. Something to mull over, at any rate? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and congratulations on your promotion to admin. I'm sorry I wasn't able to follow up on my neutral comment. I never had a chance to research further, but based on the votes from many other respected editors, I'm pretty sure I would have moved to the support column. Part of my hesitation comes from once supporting an RfA and then regretting it a few months later, so I prefer to be thorough.


 * Sure, I've thought about becoming an admin soon after I became active in the project and started making a lot of gnomish edits. I realized though that it is a difficult role with a lot of potential pitfalls. The responsibilities of the admin role, and the high level of scrutiny, would make me view Wikipedia as a job rather than a hobby. I guess I would never say never, but for now at least, it's not something I aspire to. Thanks for asking though. Very best - MrX 16:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for British green
An article that you have been involved in editing, British green, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I will have a look.- MrX 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Declined speedies
Hi MrX, just letting you know that I, as an admin who mainly edits football (soccer) articles, reviewed the speedy deletion nominations you placed on Farid Beziouen and Danilson da Cruz and have declined both. Both players' articles show that they have played football at a professional level, which means they meet WP:NFOOTY. If you believe they do not meet the general notability guidelines, I would have no objection should you wish to take the articles to AfD. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. For some reason, I thought they had to play in a top tier league to meet WP:NFOOTY, but I now stand corrected.- MrX 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

New section
Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. An edit that you recently made to Detective Willy seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! This is an english Wiki, all articles have to be in English. Next step will be AFD and SALT.  KoshVorlon   Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  21:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of this? I restored content that you blanked. The first time you blanked it was a mistake; the second time was disruptive, and this templated message is just bizarre.- MrX 21:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not bizarre. This is an english wiki, all articles have to be in English.   There are wiki's that exist solely for | spanish articles, and it's on there that this article should exist.  Blanking was definitely appropriate as we can't accept non-english articles.   Like I said, if you attempt to recreate that article in any language other than English, I'll AFD it and request that it be salted.   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kosh, you are entirely mistaken. The correct procedure for non English articles is that they be tagged, and listed at WP:PNT, they are not outright deleted (and never just blanked) unless they meet a speedy deletion criteria, which in this case it does not. I have restored the content, do not remove it again. -- Jac 16888 Talk 21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware that this is en.wiki. We simply don't blank new articles that are not written in English. For one thing it leaves blank articles which are of no use to anyone. I've explained to you what the standard practice is. Other options are CSD, AfD, and PROD. Feel free to ask other experienced editors or admins if you don't believe me. Please do not blank non-English articles again, or you may find yourself sanctioned for disruptive editing.- MrX 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Simply put, this is an English Wikipedia, therefore all article have to be in English. There are wikipedias available in additional languages to facilitate any articles not in English. Therefore that article can't be here in English. It's that simple.  However that article could be placed in DRAFTS and held there and translated, but it cannot remain an article in English.  I will move that article to a draft space as a compromise.   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  21:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kosh, please actually read the procedure described at WP:PNT and believe when I say that I know what I'm talking about. Honestly I'm amazed that you have been editing for so long and yet think blanking an article is the best way to deal with it, or that you can move a page by copy and pasting it. Please do not blank this page again-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You were mentioned
Mr.X You were mentioned  here  Feel free to come by and comment.  KoshVorlon   Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I saw. I hope that someone else is able to explain to you how we handle new non-English articles and page moves in a way that you will understand and accept.- MrX 22:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:24.186.96.236
I see you've also noticed the edits of User talk:24.186.96.236. I reported them as vandalism, but it wasn't acted on. Seems like a lot of cleanup will be needed when this editor is through. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the edits that I saw were made in good faith, but the IP needs to follow BRD and understand the editorial process. I agree that some cleanup is needed, especially if they don't slow down and learn how things work here.- MrX 01:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ETA: The vandalism report was declined.- MrX 01:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone else will have to clean up this mess. I don't wish to edit war.- MrX 01:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

19 May 2015
Hi there, you moved Xplode Magazine to Draft:Xplode Magazine yesterday due to it being incomplete - any chance you could revert this change now as it has been completed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.atcha (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I have moved the article back to article space as requested. Happy editing! - MrX 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have a look later.- MrX 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Copy right pictures
MrX I just got notified about some pictures that were possible copyright violation. The one was an author which when I uploaded it I marked that I knew it could be in violation and that it would be removed. The others were of books that I copied the picture and edited them in Microsoft paint, which is an alteration and shouldn't be in violation. If they were in violation, how do I get pictures that are not in violation? If I take a picture of a book cover with my own camera, then post it, it can still be flagged at a copyright violation, even though it is my own work. How do we get around this particular issue? Do I need to put my own mark on the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegaxshook (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Unfortunately, you can't just alter copyrighted work and post it as your own. That's still copyright infringement of the original work. This includes taking a photo of another copyright protected work, such as a book, painting or sculpture. The legal term is derivative work. There are exceptions to our policy that allows posting non-free content under fair use. See WP:NFC. There are a few places on the internet where copyright holders agree to license their work freely, under a Wikipedia compatible license (see WP:COPYOTHERS). Flickr is one, but you have to search for files that are freely licensed for use by anyone, including commercial uses. Public domain works can be uploaded also. In the US, this generally means anything created before 1923; or between 1923 and 1977, if published without a copyright notice. The copyright is a broad subject, but if you have specific questions, I can try to answer them for you or point you in the right direction.- MrX 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to look into the whole copyright thing. This seems impossible. Everything once it hits the web is automatically copyrighted mostly. How do people get so many pictures on Wikipedia? I have been to several sites that are put together well and have great pictures, but these pictures can be found anywhere. I am looking for a picture of the author Ted Dekker. I can't find anything that isn't copyrighted. What about facebook? I think I know the answer to that, but I figured I would ask. I am not going to attempt to upload another picture until I know I am doing it right, so I am asking someone who has knowledge in all this. Thanks.
 * Photographs are under copyright protection the moment that the photographer presses the shutter release, irrespective of where they are published. Many, if not most, of the photos on Wikipedia were created by the editors who uploaded them. As you probably know, Wikimedia Commons is the project where more than 29 million such photos and illustrations are made freely available. Your options for finding a free photo of Ted Dekker are: search for one that explicitly has a creative commons (or equivalent) license, contact a photographer who already take a photo of him and ask them to donate the photo for anyone to use, or find Mr. Dekker and take a photo of him yourself. I hope that helps.- MrX 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
It,s ok sorry i,m apoligize of my mistake to remove the BLP message of Jak Roberto thanks for reverting.MarkHerson (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article of Aaron DeTommaso is nominated for deletion and please help to removing for deletion.MarkHerson (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, would you please explain how the subject of the article meets the notability criteria of WP:PEOPLE?- MrX 16:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply
Hi! Thanks for your concern but my agent runs my accounts! I pop on and off sometimes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IeBariRM (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Detective Willy

 * Concerns have been addressed and nominator has withdrawn.
 * Might you revisit the discussion? Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I did, and changed my !vote to keep.- MrX 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pamela Geller's edit
You seem to revert several edits including mine. Did you intend to revert all of these edits? The edit summary seems to suggest this wasn't your intention. Can you check your revert? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I intentionally reverted the last two editors' edits. Alfietucker's removal of the SPLC content because it is "hyperbolic" or because of a dead link was not beneficial. I objected to your removal of Bill O'Reilly's and Donald Trump's criticism. I don't feel as strongly about Choudary's inflammatory quote if you would like to remove it.- MrX 14:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You did also confuse two of my edits - the editorialising I was referring to in the first, which you would have seen if you checked, was nothing to do with SPLC. I have respect for much of your work here, but I'm afraid this seemed an intemperate swipe on your part. (Sorry - just wanted to get that off my chest.) Alfietucker (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I apologize. I should not have reverted this, which you rightfully removed. Mea culpa. - MrX 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's ok - just thought I'd let you know (I'm sure I've done some "broad brush" edits myself, so will also try to be careful). Alfietucker (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should talk about the criticism at the article's talk page. I felt we were cherry picking criticisms from a long list in the Curtis Culwell Center attack article. I thought we'd just state the facts of the events and refer to the main article for the full details and full response. FYI, I also added a criticism earlier in the day to the Paid ads on public transit section. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will join the talk page later when I have more time and focus.- MrX 15:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New section
Hello "MrX".

About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B I see you have reverted a change without making a discussion or putting up a talk under the talk page. If you have read all the sources within 2 minutes, you are a very good reader, and I must admire you for your excellence of speed of reading.

If you are conflicting the evidence and the sources, please state the places that are contradictory to the same source or start a discussion under the talk page before altering the verifiable and sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.185.180 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content on the article talk page. I suggest that you not use Wikipedia to advance FRINGE holocaust denial theories promoted by the Institute for Historical Review.- MrX 23:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much for the barnstar, ! I'm glad that everything worked out on the article.- MrX 13:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Indeed, always nice&mdash;and double so when it comes to controversial articles like this one. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

New pages
Hey Mr X. Thanks for your recent removing of my incorrectly placed tag. I'm still familiarising myself with New Pages so appreciate any assistance you may have to offer. Cheers!  Rob van  vee  12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome . Thanks for your help on new page patrol!- MrX 13:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Questia Request: Samuel Cohen quote
MrX,

I note from your user page that you have Questia access. I wonder if you might consider checking a reference please? A quote appears in article section Neutron_bomb attributed to Samuel Cohen, which is unfortunately cited only to a broken link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_29_15/ai_55426724/pg_2. However, a Google Search for the quote suggests it appears in an article available via Questia,'Check Your Facts: Cox Report Bombs' from Insight on the News, contributed by Sam Cohen, and dated August 9, 1999. The full quote is: "the W-70 ... is not even remotely a 'neutron bomb.' Instead of being the type of weapon that, in the popular mind, 'kills people and spares buildings' it is one that both kills and physically destroys on a massive scale. The W-70 is not a discriminate weapon, like the neutron bomb—which, incidentally, should be considered a weapon that 'kills enemy personnel while sparing the physical fabric of the attacked populace, and even the populace too.'" Would you consider verifying this quote, and if checks out, providing a full reference please? The verifiability of this quote has been discussed at Talk:Neutron_bomb. The quote also appears in the W70 article. With my regards, - Crosbie 19:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - MrX 19:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will update the articles. Thank you very much indeed!  - Crosbie 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Alert on my personal talk page
Hi MrX, I just received your warning. I checked the link for the committe's decision, but something Macedonia related case came out, nothing about Tesla. My question is please what this alert really means. I see it must something to regulate a discussion or debate if it is escalating too much, my firm question is did I harmed any rule or did I something wrong? I don't think I did I just viewed this debate as an interesting historical investigation, where my only initiative purpose was to remove non-existing Austria-Hungary citizenships, and I achieved it with no objection. Anyway my purpose was also to fill the hole, regarding Austria-Hungary times and I think I achieved it also, since Austrian was put in, as the most probable. Please add your or the committee's point of view. What I should not do in the future in the talk page? Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC))
 * The alert is to make you aware that topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, have been placed under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. The Committee's decision is here. The alert doesn't imply that you did anything wrong. Since you asked, my advice would be to not argue about Tesla's nationality, which is of trivial importance to the article and has long ago been settled.- MrX 22:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, clear. I've never argued about Tesla's nationality in an "ethnical" way, although some people put it equal to citizenship, that is in legal manner as used in the Anglo-Saxon world, or broadly in Europe etc. manners. By us, Hungarians nationality(nemzetiség) literally means ethnicity, although the ethnics(etnikum) word for a long time introduced and used for ethnic minorities. If you see a Hungarian passport, you'll see in Hungarian "Állampolgárság" = (citizenship), but it's English translation will be "Nationality". This could make some confusions, although legally the nationality describes to belong to a nation as a subject (citizen), but not necesarily by an ethnical way. I just wanted to say with this, that I was interested on the citizenship issue in Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary and it's member states, without any connection to Tesla's nationality.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC))

I was blind
Sorry, I was really naïve and I didn't saw from where it was coming []. Seems really they are now organizing themselves and using many IPs. Thanks for opening my eyes there. Cheers! FkpCascais (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's some pretty obvious sock/meat puppetry. I will be happy when they have their own talk page and the rest of us can get back to discussing Tesla's biography..- MrX 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary space
Re this, I'm curious why one would go out of their way to insert an unnecessary space in a ref tag. Care to enlighten me? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to ruffle your feather Mandruss! (JK ). But really, because that's the convention that I've observed on Wikipedia; it's in the documentation at WP:REFNAME; and it's an XML formatting convention. It's purely for readability and visual awesomeness.- MrX 14:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. On the other side of the argument, it allows an undesirable line break within the ref tag, wikitext is not XML, it works fine without the space, the article consistently used the no-space form until your edit, and consistency on such things within an article seems to be a widely-supported good thing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Of course, I have no objection to the space being removed.- MrX 14:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

About Homosexual agenda
Dear MrX! I am MrY! I respect your experience as an editor, but now I have a question about your yesterday note “Removed improperly sourced content. Please use secondary sources that demonstrate that this content is notable”.

I am sorry, but it is not clear for me. I explain in comments why I made undo: “It is under the title Satire. The first paragraph: non-fiction satire entitled "Gay Revolutionary" describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate… It is the same topic, but "Nontraditional Love" is a fiction satire. Both paragraphs related to the same topic”. Or not?

In my understanding the section Satire should be with at least two or three paragraphs with some changes. The second paragraph should be the first and section Satire should starts with “The term is sometimes used satirically as…”  Later…

The first paragraph should be the second and starts with “A satirical article by Michael Swift which appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987 entitled "Gay Revolutionary" describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual…”

Of course, you if you not agree with this content, you could delete existing paragraph with the same note “Removed improperly sourced content.”  If not, please, explain me what is a difference between the same satire topic in non-fiction satire and in fiction satire (see my contribution to the article): “ Satire fiction also has an increased role in shaping people's attitude towards same-sex marriages. An original idea appears in…”

Best regards, I look forward to hearing from you. MrY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.61.10 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that we should use sources that are independent of the subject (Secondary sources). We should not add content about a book, from the book itself. I think that entire section should be trimmed for similar reasons. In any case, please join the discussion on the article talk page where other editors are already discussing this.- MrX 19:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Film categories
Per the hatnote at the top of the page on Category:American films: it has been longstanding precedent with the Films Wikiproject to categorize all articles from subcategories in the by-country parent categories as well. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 11:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for explanation. I think there is supposed to be a hatnote on the subcategories as well, which I will add to the American Documentary Films subcat.- MrX 11:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not actually seen any hatnotes on any of the subcategories, so I can't speak to that...but it mightn't be a bad idea, at that. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

L235
FYI, regarding your comment on the arbitration noticeboard, L235 is female. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? says  - MrX 22:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Janet Mock
Could you take a look at the OR tag on this article too? Skyerise (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with original research, but I suggest raising the issue at WP:OR/N if you're not able to get more participation on the talk page. As you can see in the section above, I have my own problems with misgendering.- MrX 23:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...
...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of the honor. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)