User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2016

Happy New Year, MrX!


Happy New Year! MrX, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks . Happy New Year to you also! - MrX 01:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, X!

 * Thank you for your thoughtful greeting . A Very Happy New Year to you as well!- MrX 13:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting self revert at Marco Rubio
This edit -- please revert yourself. In addition to the reason I explained on the talk page, the material you re-inserted is false because the source talks about Rubio disagreeing with some scientists. That's not the same as disputing scientific understanding as a whole. Thanks. CometEncke (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If MrX self-reverts, I'll return the article to the version before you started making these changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I believe the current version is far more accurate than what you replaced it with. I proposed a slight rewording on the talk page to bring it even closer to the source. Please comment there. - MrX 16:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Rubio again
As a separate matter from the above, please restore the ABC news source you removed. You yourself did request, in that very discussion on the talk page, that sources not be removed. CometEncke (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source was added when you added the quote from Rubio. Two editors have objected to that content. Your task is to try to get consensus for that new content on the talk page. Please see WP:BRD. - MrX 17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

NDE Rescue
Hello MrX, I just wanted to ask that how much do you get paid for this job


 * I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate. - MrX 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Polling.
Hello, dear MrX. You said that my article: Opinion polling for the next Polish general election must be deleted. OK, but then why this category is still alive with 10+ opinion polling articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Opinion_polling_for_future_elections

--Mirashhh (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Mirashhh
 * Hi . I don't know why there are other articles consisting of opinion poll data, but as far as I understand, that is not the type of content that we desire in the encyclopedia. Of course, I may be wrong, in which case the article will survice deletion after the deletion discussion. - MrX 16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, I read WP:NOSTATS and found this: " cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." This article is the same: opinion polling with tables.
 * That was added in 2007 by a then new user who apparently added that information without discussion or consensus. Whether it is a widely accepted practice to include opinion poll data on Wikipedia is unknown to me, but I do know that such content has been objected to in the past. - MrX 18:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology from Prolumbo
Hi MrX

Please accept my apologies for merging hemi-sync with Robert Monroe without consensus. My intentions were entirely constructive. I felt it was the best way to create a solid article from material spread across three, some acurately biogrpahic, some innacurate, some potentially original research. But as I said on the talk page - I can let it go. Prolumbo (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem . It's OK to be bold and I appreciate your message. I agree that the article needs improvement, although it does seem to meet our notability requirements.- MrX 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Leave it be then. And I'll try to improve it. Thanks for your amicable input!

Orphaned non-free image File:Solar Ship logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Solar Ship logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology from Prolumbo (Lucid dreaming)
Ooooops.... Please accept my apology for not providing an edit summary or signing. I usually do. An oversight on my part, not intentional. Many thanks for your encouraging words on improving the article! Prolumbo (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks for your work on the article!- MrX 13:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Contest Deletion on Kush Theoriez Music Album
Can you review the changes I made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kush_Theoriez and please remove the speedy deletion notice. Thanks in advance. OakridgeMakaveli (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the sources are independent or reliable for establishing the required notability. Please see WP:NALBUM and WP:YFA.- MrX 02:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request Not to Remove the Characters of Dreams (2016 films).
Hi, i'd noticed that you'd remove the characters of Dreams (2016 films) unnecessary. So please don't remove any characters of this page. Add more characters if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaazaUpreti132 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi . Wouldn't you agree that we don't need the same exact information repeated twice in a short article? That's what my edit attempted to fix. - MrX 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dan Kratz
Good catch on the hoax! I didn't even bother to check the sources because the person as written wasn't notable anyway, but good eye. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now we just need an admin to zap it into oblivion and all will be right with the universe again.- MrX 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
Truth be told the phrase in question is an Oxymoron but I refrain from commenting there. Buster Seven   Talk  00:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very true indeed.- MrX 01:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article assistance needed
I'm in a contentious situation with another editor at Shooting of Samuel DuBose, and we would benefit from your participation for awhile. The editor has astutely identified me as the rabid BLM POV-pusher that I am, and has declared his mission to reverse the damage I've caused to the article. I'm not asking you to come support me, only to help provide a quorum for consensus, if you have some time. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I will see if I can offer some assistance.- MrX 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Citing an app?
Is there a way I can add a reference to a smartphone app? The information I'm posting is easily verifiable on the apps, but for whatever reason, I can't find a web page for the Samsung Gear VR store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWantTheHolodeck (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perform a Google news search and cite the most relevant news sources.- MrX 14:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request not to remove The Afternoon Show at BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Hi MrX

I am just starting out in Wikipedia and am very grateful for your help on my first articles. I do hope that I am able to fix up the article during these few days, so could we please not remove it. Thanks again for all your help and support, I really appreciate it!

Rlin1 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes, deletion discussions take around seven days, so you have plenty of opportunity to find some reliable, independent sources to cite in the article. I searched and was not able to find any.- MrX 04:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump
Thank you for making a case for/against split in Talk:Donald_Trump. It seems like the consensus is that a split is good, but may need a few other edits to clear up NPOV / WEIGHT issues you mentioned. I'd be happy to help do that; do you have specific sections in mind? If you are in favor of the split, I'd appreciate if you would restore my edit. I think I've made a good case which you appear to agree with, and I think it would be really nice if the revert back to my edit came from you. Thanks. Yourmanstan (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus so far is that there needs to be a summary before the information is removed, and a couple of people want to see the summary before consenting to the spinoff. For that reason, I'm not inclined to restore your edit. Let's keep the remainder of the discussion on the article talk page, if you don't mind.- MrX 21:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yourmanstan (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrators noticeboard / incidents report

Purain Village
Isn't the name Purain rather?Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. I moved the article to Purain, based on what I found in Google Earth and a brief search in Google. Thanks for catching the error.- MrX 12:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Marco Rubio
There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Marco Rubio which you may care to weigh in on.  Spartan7W  &sect;   15:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page that you nomiated for speedy deletion, Test, is not eligible for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is a shortcut that allows pages to be deleted without community discussion, and it can only be used in very specific circumstances. Please carefully read WP:NPP and WP:CSD before nominating any more pages for speedy deletion and ask any questions you have here. Thank you. - MrX 21:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) - MrX 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Mediumship
I'm hoping this is the correct area to leave a message. Regarding your removal of my link on the mediumship page, the external link I cited is from a published book on the topic (I have permission to use it) and the author is an authority on the subject. I very much think it contributes quite a bit to the page. The other links listed are all heavily biased toward the subject and are works of skepticism. Why is there an overwhelming bias on that page? If works of skepticism are to be the only links allowed, that seems patently unfair, and a disservice to those readers who would appreciate resources that are more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyafternoon (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the link belongs in the article per WP:ELNO. It not even about the same subject as the article. From the website that you linked:
 * This single author doesn't represents the encyclopedic understanding of mediumship. If you disagree, you may want to raise the issue at WP:ELN.- MrX 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This single author doesn't represents the encyclopedic understanding of mediumship. If you disagree, you may want to raise the issue at WP:ELN.- MrX 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Teachings
Your removal of all the external links on the Michael teachings page is equally surprising. MichaelTeachings.com is the official website on that subject and it's not for profit. The site houses articles written by published authorities on the topic, and it definitely contributes to the Wiki entry because it gives the reader a resource of hundreds of pages for further reading. I request at the very least returning the MichaelTeachings.com link to that page. It's a valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Lazyafternoon (talk • contribs)
 * According to the author the official website is messagesfrommichael.com. The link that you added to multiple articles is not official, or authoritative, as far as I can see. Did you read WP:EL? If you see something there that supports adding MichaelTeachings.com to any of the articles, then I suggest raising the issue at WP:ELN to get advice from other editors.- MrX 11:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on whom you consider the author. There are a number of books about the teachings, written by various authors. MichaelTeachings.com has been a hub on the web for Michael students for many years now, and the link has been on the Wiki page since the inception of that page. Other editors have seen it and never raised an issue. Removing it makes no sense. It's a logical link to more information about the teachings. And many of the articles at the site were written by those authors. I don't know how more authoritative you can get than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyafternoon (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll also add that according to Wiki -- The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable -- the MichaelTeachings.com site covers that requirement with extensive material about the subject. In fact, one of the authors at the site includes a forward written in his book about the teachings that was written by one of the authors you use as a reference on the page. The site you include as official has very little content and isn't a comprehensive source on the subject. It was also created to primarily sell services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyafternoon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of sending readers off Wiki for information that they could otherwise get in an article. If you put the link(s) back, I'm not going to revert you, but I do think you should run it by other editors at WP:ELN.- MrX 20:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News Network
Hi. I noticed you posted a 3RR warning to Loginnigol's talk page. Would you mind commenting at Talk:Breitbart News Network? He made this revert which I disagree with. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see if I have an opinion to give.- MrX 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

aggresive opening
Hi. Don't ever open again with that aggressive pre-judged attitute. You have no right or weight to judge. -DePiep (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. You were edit warring, and if you continue you may find yourself blocked. There's nothing particularly aggressive about warning you about that possibility.- MrX 02:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Image of Bernie Supporters
User:MrX, If you're going to insist on including an image of people holding Bernie campaign signs at a Trump event, will you support me in adding an image of people holding Bernie campaign signs at a Clinton event at her presidential campaign article?CFredkin (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will as long as there is relevant content in the article about the Bernie supporters at the Clinton event. In other words, if it helps our readers understand the subject. - MrX 01:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But Trump's presidential campaign article doesn't mention Sanders (or his supporters) in that context).CFredkin (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump has suggested that the Chicago protesters were part of an organized effort on the part of the Sanders campaign. This is very well sourced, for example:   . Obviously, the article should mention this. I'm honestly not clear on what your objection to the video actually is.- MrX 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't seen any of the sources that you just provided. None of the content from those sources is currently included in the article.   I guess my objection is more to the caption, than the video itself.  The reference to people chanting "Bernie" is gratuitous.  The video itself appears to be raw footage of the event, and the caption seems like original research. (Someone could also suggest that the caption should read: Sanders supporters invade Trump event.)  Do you have an objection to me editing the caption to remove that reference?CFredkin (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm fine with that. I was actually going to suggest it.- MrX 02:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship
Did you intentionally remove the following in your last edit at the Trump political positions article: However the issue is not considered completely settled, since the amendment does not discuss illegal immigration and the matter has not been addressed by the Supreme Court? It looks like it may have been a mistake.CFredkin (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sure how that happened. I have restored it.- MrX 17:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!CFredkin (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hillary Clinton Email Controversy
You have removed sourced material from Wikipedia, an action consistent with Vandalism and contrary to Wikipedia Verifiability standards, citing Undue Weight. James Comey has given testimony before the United States Senate outlining the size of the investigation, viz. 150 agents. Numerous media interviews with retired FBI agents and intelligence sources have stated the size of the investigation is not consistent with what Hillary Clinton has called a "security review;" Comey has flatly stated the FBI does not perform "security reviews." The sourced material you have removed contains attestation for the claim the size of the investigation is again, NOT consistent with a "security review," as such a thing does not exist as performed by the agency in question.

Your deletion of sourced material is further in conflict with Wikipedia's Be Bold policy and Wikipedia's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy. Your deletion of sourced material is inconsistent with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy. The sourced material must be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Please read WP:VANDALISM, WP:CWW, and WP:WEIGHT. You can't copy a chunk of material and paste it into another article without proper attribution as required by license agreements. You should also discuss it on the talk page to get consensus. I'm sure this material is really related to the campaign.- MrX 13:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It was removed from the Clinton Foundation article for which it was originally composed, and where it was rejected for similarly spurious reasons. See the history for that page; you can easily verify that this is so. It has nothing to do with the campaign as you will have verified, it has to do with the reality in which humanity is presently living. I suggest that you, sir or madam, are projecting your concerns onto an article concerning a current event and are assigning undue weight to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting an edit that (appeared to) violate our license agreement is not spurious. I'm more concerned that you are trying to shoehorn the same content into two very different articles. Regardless, you need to make your case on the article talk page(s), not here. I wouldn't bother using grandiloquent language like "the reality in which humanity is presently living", as other editors probably won't take you very seriously if you do. Straightforward, compelling arguments about the relevance and sourcing of the proposed content is what matters.- MrX 03:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Jeb Bush Portrait
There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Jeb Bush which you may care to weigh in on.  Spartan7W  &sect;   14:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
You're welcome - with that "thanks", you actually reminded me - I needed to warn the user! I have now done so. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually tried the same revert, but I think you beat me to it by a few seconds. Anyone editing an article that that receives 700,000 page views per day definitely needs to use edit summaries.- MrX 18:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, not to mention the fact that there are discretionary sanctions on that article too. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Anonymous Award
All of the IP users working on Wikipedia would like to thank you for helping to protect our rights to anonymity and free speech. Thank you. -74

mentorship
Dear MrX, I am new around here and would like to make that a habit. Another user suggested to find mentorship to get me started in the right path. I am a scientist specialised in optics. Would you mind helping? C.macrom (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure, I can try to help you, within the limited time I have available. What are the areas that you need help with? I see that you created two articles that are essentially duplicates. One can be redirected to the other.- MrX 12:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC),12:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did that because I was exploring which keywords to use in the title. Finally found out that wide-field multiphoton microscopy works best and I am now only working on that one. Would it be better to have it erased or redirected? C.macrom (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you tried to erase the content, but redirecting (which I just did) is the way to go because both titles are plausible.- MrX 12:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion explanation
I've reverted your collapse. I appreciate your concerns, and I agree that "bickering" should not be taking place; however, I did refer to another editor and the differences in approach are part of the discussion and should remain. I have not responded to ZigZig's last comment and I do not intend to. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Hopefully that's the end of it.- MrX 16:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

CSD tag
You reverted my CSD tag for David Kyles (actor) and said that it was not advertising and promotion. Given the fact that the username directly lines up to the article leads me to believe the user is intending to self promote. Music1201 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but that connection does not automatically make the article deletable under our speedy deletion policy. For an article to be speedy deleted under G11, the content of the article itself must be (mostly or wholly) promotional. That was not the case with David Kyles.- MrX 01:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Marked my article for deletion
You seem like an experienced person with this sort of work. You did not specify what was wrong with the Article Liberal Democrats - LD marking it for deletion? Is it because it so void of fact as an article about a political party? Or it cannot be developed because it has reference which if you could go through the given website, you could help make it better where it isn't, probable as a major contributor with a decade of experience. Vsibbs (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I moved your article to the draft area of the encyclopedia so that you can keep working on it to bring it up to our minimum standards for publishing in the live article area, which I see that you have done. The page marked for deletion is simply a redirect from the live article area to the draft article area. Once the redirect is deleted, you can move the article back to that title by selecting "move" from the menu and selecting (Article) from the new title drop down box. Or you can do it now, by moving the draft article to a more appropriate title like Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe). Please let me know if you need more help.- MrX 11:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr X. I would like to move it to be live now can you help with that Sir. I am really a newbie here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsibbs (talk • contribs) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. - MrX 11:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you a million times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsibbs (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr X, there is a suggestion that my article looks like an advertisement could you ihelp identify anything of that sort and help me rewrite it in a better that does look like an advert because there is a tag to that effect on it. Appreciates all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsibbs (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Could you please also help with the infobox. I added some information but its not appearing because it is not original from the template. It probable needs your experience to authorise the box to contain that additional information
 * I'm not familiar with the subject, so I will not be able to help rewrite it. You can read WP:NPOV to understand how articles should be written from a neutral stance. Then, for every paragraph, or even every sentence, make sure you have cited an independent reliable source (in other words, a newspaper, journal, magazine, or news website). Anything that can not be cited to an independent source should be removed. I hope that helps.- MrX 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

About the Phone Companies article
I appreciate your efforts towards improving wikipedia, but the following information that you may have deleted or undo were from this article "Mobile phone industry in Pakistan" and as a Pakistani I seen these companies even with their advertisements and I even used their products. I hope you understand.

sincerely:

Pakelectrical User:Pakelectrical Talk

Oh! Sorry I forgot to saw WP:WTAF
 * No problem. If you have time and can find sources, I would encourage you to create articles for some of the mobile phone manufacturers in Pakistan. Cheers - MrX 16:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My Hope...
is that your mention of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#BLPs. does not cause a certain editor to begin working on the article and bring his obfuscating demeanor to the talk page. If he shows up and lingers for more than 10 minutes, I will, in good conscience, be unable (going forward) to have any presence at the Trump campaign article. To me the presence of paid political operatives at any campaign article is to be expected. Wikipedia is too very, very visible and visited by millions of readers to be left to editors that don't share a love of the candidate. I am not saying the un-named editor is an employee but he might as well be. Every mention of every detail will be a fight and he will be adamant in his road-blocking tactics. My fingers and toes are crossed ...hoping you haven't opened the barn door and loosed him upon us. But I feel he is right around the corner. Ugh! I dread the thought. BTW, your edits and comments, at Trump and elsewhere, are always most enjoyable. I came here this morning to forewarn you that in case I disappear from the article, someone will know why. It takes someone that has dealt with "C" to truly understand the sink-hole that he creates. Buster Seven   Talk  13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK to remove this message. Buster Seven   Talk  13:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand . That user is not allowed to edit that page or any page related to American politics so it shouldn't be a problem.- MrX 14:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good news. Buster Seven   Talk  22:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)