User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2020

Let's continue the consensus process (Media coverage of Bernie Sanders)
Hi,. It seems to me that the those outsiders who have participated in the discussions at WP:DRN and WP:VPP are in your favor. I feel like my concerns are largely being misunderstood, although I believe I've already explained them to you. In any case, I wanted to ask if the consensus process could continue (my latest reply re: this is at the bottom of this section, for the record). In this situation, it seems that you have priority with those edits that you're not willing to concede.

I think has been making edits to address some concerns by yourself and Snoogans, so it would be good if you could review those to see if they have aided with any of the outstanding disputes. Or, we can start over from how the page stood when you were finished editing it, as the WP:DRN and WP:VPP discussions seem to indicate you have the right to do. I just hope this laborious dispute can be brought to a mutually satisfying close. Thanks for reading. Selvydra (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still involved, but I can only spend a portion of my time on that article. You see, I'm here to improve the entire encyclopedia, not simply conform a single article or subject to my personal viewpoint. - MrX 🖋 14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't alleged that last part. We all have our viewpoints, and they're typically informed by what we know about the topic. As for myself, ultimately I want pages like this to represent views fairly, not significantly overrepresent one over the other. It does no favors to my viewpoints if I think they need an unfair advantage to be agreed with.
 * There's no big rush. I mainly wrote this to signal my willingness to accept DRN and VPP outcomes and to return to discussing the content. Selvydra (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. There's a central question that has continuously gone unanswered – even during the VPP and DRN discussions: Should go without saying – but if this is inaccurate, then please explain what *is* accurate instead of saying this is a straw-man and ending the reply there. Thanks in advance. Selvydra (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is an explicitly reliable source required to include even content that is verifiable outside of that source? As an example: If a person is interviewed by a source with no consensus on its reliability, why can it not be included on Wikipedia before a source deemed RS reports on it? Do we believe that a source with no consensus on WP:RSPSOURCES would have deepfaked or misleadingly edited the interview? (This pertains to the Ed Schultz section, for which he was interviewed by a no-consensus source, and this was then reported on by two other such sources.)
 * To the extent I understand you question, it's not. Is this a hypothetical question, or did someone make this claim? We almost always favor WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources. Reliability is not dependent on being listed at WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 13:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, a highly active editor on the Media coverage article has been deleting numerous sections because they're from left-wing news sites (usually 'no consensus' on RSP), even though in many cases (if not every case), the content is not contingent on the reliability of the source. (It seems likely the sources have picked it up – and corporate-owned media hasn't – because it's critical of the latter.) The editor doesn't engage with you saying the RSP status needn't explicitly be "reliable" (unless there is reason to believe the secondary source in question full-on fabricated the incident). What is one supposed to do in such a situation?
 * The one time I got a response was when I explained the above and said something akin to, "This is just about you thinking the content is not notable enough because a more well-known source hasn't picked it up," and they seemed to agree. Forgive me for the tangent, but this is another question that hasn't been addressed. A lot of content is being removed over being 'isolated incidents'. But what is one to do when the phenomenon the article is about consists entirely of isolated incidents? One ends up having to contend with the continuum fallacy, where each piece of content is individually unnotable, so it could all technically then be removed (in practice, this means most that conform to a certain PoV get removed). Selvydra (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Blow Buddies
Is not a nightclub it is a sex club and it's the biggest one in the gayest city just so you know, can you help me find more sources for it? Or perhaps suggest another article it could be merged into? Let's be inclusive of minority related articles yeahNdołkah☆ (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I always look for additional sources before nominating articles for deletion. I'm sorry, but I think you struggle to understand our reliable source requirements and our notability requirements. Please take time to learn out policies before creating new articles. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the San Jose Mercury News and the Bay Area Reporter are not a reliable sources?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying I think you struggle to understand our reliable source requirements. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX/Endorsements
"Poker websites"? Really? Why not also add WP:DEPREC sources like Daily Mail, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Medium (blog), tabloids, and whatnot? ミラP 21:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, we had editors adding pseudo-endorsements sourced to poker websites, so when I wrote the boilerplate message, I added it. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should add tabloids and deprecated Daily Caller/Breitbart sites to the message. ミラP 22:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah that's not a bad idea. - MrX 🖋 23:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ask, we could also add crypto blogs to the message and make an edit filter that blocks attempts to add URLs to Twitter and Facebook. ミラP 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That Billy West thing was an an obvious endorsement, just look at his twitter and see his endorsements for him, and if you want more info about how endorsements work, talk to Jccali1224. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.10.206 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you can't use Twitter. Please read WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC Closure at Julian Assange
Please consider undoing your closure of the RfC at Julian Assange. There is a strong impression (in my mind, and I'm sure in the minds of many others) that you are involved, given your strong involvement in many related topics in AmPol. We can wait for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My involvement with a few American politics articles is not a legitimate reason to assume that I am involved with respect to Assange, a non-politician. Do you believe the RfC should have been closed differently, and if so, why? - MrX 🖋 17:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not just a few AmPol articles that you've edited, but rather a cluster of articles closely relating to Julian Assange (and Russiagate more broadly) that you've been highly active at. Regardless of what the ultimate decision is by the closer of the RfC, the editor who closes it should not be involved. Even if you do not feel you are involved, the appearance of involvement is enough that you should refrain from closing the RfC. There are plenty of other editors who are capable of closing it. That's why I'm asking you to undo your close, and let someone else close the RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We all know your reply is nonsense personalized deflection. Please respond to MrX's question.  SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I answered their question directly: the issue is not what MrX wrote in the closing summary (that's not an endorsement of their summary, by the way), but rather MrX's involvement. A discussion of whether or not an editor is involved is necessarily "personal." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: Do you believe the RfC should have been closed differently, and if so, why? - MrX 🖋 22:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to add what's so obvious that MrX didn't spell it out: The close was clear-cut. There was virtually no reasoned support for the alternative content that was rejected.  SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've already answered your question, but I'll repeat my response in different words: I'm not here to argue over what you wrote in your closing summary, but to ask you, an involved editor, to undo your close and let an uninvolved editor make the call. Here's what WP:ACD has to say on who should close a discussion:
 * "Note that the appearance of involvement is important separately from actual involvement, because it will reduce the authority of the closure and its statement. For example, if you’ve made major edits in the topic area, or expressed opinions with respect to it, then this may affect your suitability as a closer. The existence of evidence that could be used to argue involvement, even if the arguments would be spurious, may be relevant to whether you can effectively act as a closer. If there are openings for your actions to be easily challenged, it will distract from the resolution of the issue."
 * As one of the top contributors to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you have to admit that there could be a strong perception that you're involved, even if you do not feel you are. As the advice on closing discussions says, avoiding any appearance of involvement is important. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a fly on the wall, Thucydides411, I would recommend that -- since you do not disagree with MrX's close on the substance -- you just let it ride. After all Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Then if anyone lodges a formal request for closure review or if any independent editors express concerns, there can be a review based on the substance of their concerns.  SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So, let me try to understand this. It's not that you disagree with my close from a week ago; you just don't want me to have closed it, for some reason that I'm sure is entirely unrelated to this. To support your position, you cite an essay written almost entirely by one personnot an actually policy. But your real concern, which you expect me to adopt as my concern, is that "there could be a strong perception that [I'm] involved", even though I never edited the Julian Assange article or talk page, and not a single other editor has raised such a concern.


 * I'm sorry, but I decline. You're free to pursue WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you wish. - MrX 🖋 04:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Susie, Washington for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susie, Washington 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 Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Reywas92Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

About https://www.democracyinaction.us/
It is an organization that provides independent and reliable sources about US elections since 1998, it reports on Democrats, Independents and Republicans with as little bias as possible. It is both highly regarded and is often used as a source from more "mainstream" media such as CNN and Fox News. It is in no way considered as a "personal website". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-asd-97 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some evidence that they are reliable and not just Eric M. Appleman's blog? Something like their work being cited by CNN or Fox News, as you suggested, would be helpful. - MrX 🖋 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  04:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

IP editor making personal attacks
Just thought I'd point out that an IP has made some personal attacks against you here, in case you haven't seen them. From one of their provided links, their support of the far-right conspiracy theory website Breitbart and their dismissal of the anti-fascist group Antifa as terrorists, they're likely here to push a far-right POV, so one to watch out for. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know . It's probably probably a banned editor who is socking. - MrX 🖋 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Particularly egregious: the evidence-free accusation of being an admin. ;) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Minnesota Family Council Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Minnesota Family Council Logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Shithole comment
Insufficient explanation given for presenting hearsay as a fact. “Shithole” is a comment Trump denied making and there is no recorded or written evidence that this comment was definitively made. The proper encyclopedic way to present this would be to characterize that he “allegedly” made this comment but later denied it. Presenting this line as a fact is misleading and would be disallowed in a courtroom in a second without this alleged disclaimer. Additionally, only 3 small countries are cited as part of international condemning these comments. If you would like to include these countries specifically (Botswana, Haiti, etc.) and say they condemned the comments that’s fine, but the broad wording of “internationally condemned” is a generalization and not encyclopedic. If these changes are not made, the article appears to be extremely political and biased in nature and not an objective presentation of facts. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7    —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court. We base content on what is written in reliable sources. Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can participate. - MrX 🖋 18:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * or Deny. I'm too lazy to ask an Admin for a block.  SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the civil discourse Mr. X, SPECIFICO I must say you have been rather inflammatory please keep the labels and threats to yourself, thank you. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7
 * Don't confuse your many warnings with threats. You can be blocked without warning by any Admin upon request of any editor. Read the DS talk page notice etc. Nobody would waste time threatening you if their preference was just to have you blocked. But if you don't heed the warnings and change course very soon, you are likely to regret the outcome.  SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have obeyed the rules and offered civil discourse on the talk page. Unless you can point out any specific rules I have broken in regards to my conduct with other editors, there is no basis for being blocked, and any Admin would see that. But thank you for your concern. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC archived
You may not have yet noticed that the RfC you started was archived before resolution, and even before de-listing. We generally pin RfCs and missed that one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I will restore it and add a do not archive tag. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * invokes DNAU and creates a message box so the DNAU is apparent without editing the section. I've done that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why he's called the "Mandruss". Meanwhile, the whole thing will most likely be rewritten a month from now if the outcome of the impeachment is known by then.  SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss - OK, thanks. I learned something new today. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Shame on you for persistent quibbling over Pam Bondi
Pam Bondi "made debunked allegations that" is supposed to be different from "made the case that"? You have repeatedly deleted a large amount of information that is (a) factual, (b) well known, and (c) sourced, claiming that *you* personally could not find statements in the cited sources to back up a couple of the incidental statements. It was always pettifogging. Now you're reduced to quibbling over phraseology, having apparently finally read the cited sources and discovered that the assertions you kept deleting are true.72.86.138.119 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are different. Just stick to what is actually written in the sources and everything will be fine. - MrX 🖋 21:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do tell: how is making allegations that different from making the case that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.119 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Making the case" implies that she proved, demonstrated, or established the veracity of the allegations. In reality, the allegations are without evidence, and widely considered part of a debunked conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 00:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing on articles and their talk pages
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

, regarding your reverts   of long standing content created by various editors: Neither the arguments in your edit summaries nor your argument  on the talk page discussion hold up to examination  of the sources you dispute, or when compared to Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Therefore your were deleting the pertinent cited additions of others. While I have been listening very carefully to all objections and discussed every objection in detail   and continuously improve my contributions from preceding versions  and adapt them  to objections of other editors, you have not tried to fix the problem via repairing the article content you find problematic and you did not propose an alternative text version to the content you object against. You persistently reject reliable sources because the are allegdly "not reliable" or "poor" or "biased" or "misinformation".   my reply      This amounts to disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. You also claimed, my reliable sources were ineligible because written by Gabbard fans. And you also claimed Who cares who commented in Gabbard's defense [against Hillary Clinton's "Russian asset" accusations]?. And you claimed, sources who write about a media bias against Gabbard were not reliable sources:. These three claims amount to political censorship. This pattern regarding sources also amounts to unreasonable sourcing demands. You did not respond to me when I asked you for a text proposal and reasoning for your vague article edit request this article should reflect the reality that her campaign simply had very little impact on the political landscape. Your non-reponse amounts to ignoring good faith questions. Your article edits and talk page comments seem to be tendentious and creating a WP:STONEWALL against my bold editing in the article. Please don't do that. Xenagoras (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , allow me to unwind this a bit. First, I assume you intended to post this on my user talk page, not my user page. Please don't use vandalism warning templates to solve content disputes. I'm happy to continue discussing the merits of the content on the article talk page, as I have been doing. You can help that process by assuming good faith, and by being succinct in your arguments. As I mentioned before, when multiple editors disagree with your content, you should consider whether the content actual belongs and whether it is time to concede. If I failed to answer a direct question that you asked me, it is because I missed it in the sea of words that you posted. Feel free to direct me to the question and I will try to answer it now. - MrX 🖋 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pam Bondi article
The Joe and Hunter Biden corruption re: Ukraine is currently under investigation by the Senate, and is certainly not "debunked." The references in the Pam Bondi article saying it has been debunked are op-eds, which are not suitable sources. The results of the Justice Dept. investigation are forthcoming, at which point you can call it debunked, and use references that are not opinion pieces. Please revert your edit. MorganDWright (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't read the sources have you? Ref. #46 is a news analysis, not an opinion article. It says
 * - MrX 🖋 15:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece. The author says it's unfounded, but doesn't tell us why it's unfounded. Then the author tells us it's specious or debunked, but gives no evidence why, again just stating his opinion. Quoting a partisan journalist who says it's debunked is not encyclopedic and not worth of an unbiased project. Please change it back.MorganDWright (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an opinion piece. If you dispute that, take it to WP:RSN for confirmation. Please use the article talk page for all further discussion about the content. - MrX 🖋 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an opinion piece. If you dispute that, take it to WP:RSN for confirmation. Please use the article talk page for all further discussion about the content. - MrX 🖋 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks for the coffee and no worries. I thought you probably didn't yet know about the new guideline. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋

Post-1932 politics of the United States
I am well aware of the Post-1932 politics of the United States sanctions and have no idea why you would post them to my talk page. I don't find it very collegial, per Don't template the regulars. If you have any issues, it's better to state them directly. TFD (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Since you were personalizing a content dispute, and being anything but collegial, I figured you may not have been aware of the expectations for editing article related to American politics. It seemed like you popped into the talk page just to take me to task. - MrX 🖋 20:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not even comment on the content in the discussion thread. I was merely observing that coatracking into a discussion about who is the frontrunner distracts from the discussion and makes it less likely to resolve the dispute. No one is suggesting in the thread that the article say that Sanders is the frontrunner. Incidentally, subsequent to my posting I noticed that Chuck Todd of MSNBC now says that Buttigieg could be considered the frontrunner. TFD (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, those alerts are a completely routine and required part of the process. You should receive one per year for AP2 as long as you edit in the AP2 topic area, and it doesn't matter who issues them or under what circumstances. The same goes for any other topic areas under DS. If you don't like receiving them, you can preemptively issue them to yourself (as I do, thereby showing that I'm aware of the sanctions) or post a notice at the top of your UTP as at User talk:Atsme. But Don't template the regulars certainly does not apply here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please answer my question
please answer my question on the talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I'm not takin' the bait. - MrX 🖋 23:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not bait you. I wanted the editors at which you casted the aspersion of being a bunch of newly minted user accounts [who] are using Wikipedia to astroturf to know that they were meant by you, so that these editors then can contact you directly. Please strike through the part of your remark I quoted. You owe the editors which you targeted a declaration of honor. Xenagoras (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback
I received your feed back regarding Rush Limbaugh changes. Your comments claim Ed that I made personal judgements outside the Wikipedia frame work. I don't believe that was true. Rather I applied the appropriate definition, based on Wikipedia's definition of terms. Wikipedia provides specific definition for conservative (which has many flaws by the way) and "right-wing". It is one thing to be conservative and another to be right-wing. As A political scientist, with a master's degree, I can easily defend changing the opening paragraph for Mr. Limbaugh from conservative to right wing. If you want to replace either of these terms with another I would agree to discuss it, but to define Mr. Limbaugh as a conservative would only be appropriate if you change Wikipedia's definition of conservativism. There is nothing conservative about the PC movement, there is nothing conservative about the war in Iran, there is nothing conservative about his claims that President Obama was not an American citizen. These are radical far- right conspiracy concepts which you will not find defined under the term "conservative". I also defined Mr. Limbaugh comments as rascist. I did that because the comments had been defined as entertainment. If you look up entertainment you will not find anything he screamed about listed. Scream hate speech over the radio isn't entertainment. To call it so because many people listen is a simply false. Hitler was a member and director of the Nazi party. That isn't my opinion, that is a fact. Mr. Limbaugh lied, screamed hate speech on broadcast. Why he did it is an opinion but that he did it isn't. He even admitted it more than once, at least once he apologized for it. He gave explainations, that is his opinion for why he did these things. But it isn't opinion to say a remark is rascist if it meets the definition and if the speaker agrees. I did not call him a rascist, I defined his remarks as rascist. They were then and they still are. In fact I have noted a very conservative bias on all the Wikipedia pages. From how it defines conservative, socialism, republicanism, and each political party. For example under the party beliefs Wikipedia could have inserted party platforms. But instead repeated candidate promises. A Candidate isn't a party, just one representative. If Wikipedia goes this route the entire Republican section will have to be rewritten to reflect Trump's world view. Who do you suppose will write that given that the vast majority of Professional Political Scientist believe him to be autocratic in policy. A far cry from traditional conservative as defined by Wikipedia. If you don't like Wikipedia's definitions don't blame me for applying them appropriately. Pjtawney (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I think you may have the wrong editor. This is the only edit I made to the Rush Limbaugh article. I placed a discretionary sanction alert on your talk page about two weeks ago, but nothing about Limbaugh. It may have been because I saw this edit, but I don't remember. This content is best discussed on the article talk page, keeping in mind that everything we write in articles about living people must be impeccably sourced, not based on original research. - MrX 🖋 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Sources?
AS that notorious "rogue poll" in Nevada showing Steyer ahead. How do you define "good sources?" All the outside poll aggregators except "Real Clear" had it, and they're notorious for being Trump shills. The result could have effected those Steyer and Klobuchar supporters to vote early, thereby skewering the results. It may be important, and as such, it should be part of the record. The "it screws up the bell curve" or "let's get rid of the outliers" type argument might be good when doing statistics, but the publication of polls while early voting is going on has effects. What sources do you consider good? Twitter's trends are good. Same thing with google searches. This shows that the thing's being talked about, whether it's positive or negative is of no consequence. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * After I wrote that comment, I noticed that 538 lists the poll, so that gives me a bit of comfort and I'm no longer inclined to remove it. Ideally, I would prefer to only include polls that have been cited by a newspaper or news organization, but I'm not sure I stand with the majority on these caucus/primary articles. By the way, do you know if there is any significance to a poll not having any letter grade on 538? - MrX 🖋 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, it was a bad poll, and it stuck out like a sore thumb, but the significance was Just that. It stood out, and Steyer, Klobuchar and Mayor Pete tweeted the hell out of it and it may have gotten their supporters out to the polls over the weekend. 80 thousand people ain't chopped liver. The little stuff is important when it comes at the right time. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Some context needed to interpret the situation correctly
See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics (so-called "spamming"). I will give you more background if request.

Also constructive for discussion are the major contributors (add title as needed).

X1\ (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg NPOV/Potential Dispute
I’d like to draw your attention to talk:Pete Buttigieg and the NPOV discussion which you seem to have abandoned. I am planning to move forward but in order to reach consensus I suggest you put your biases aside, make your contributions to the suggestions so that we may move forward. If you are unable to do so, I may need to seek dispute resolution. In fact, I suggest you generally cease your ham-fisted editing in the light of the clear biases that guide said editing. (I took a look at your talk page and you seem to be implementing changes like I suggested for the Pete Buttigieg page to the Tulsi Gabbard one, not a good look). GGLLFFP (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't abandoned the discussion. I started reading your last very lengthy proposal, but I haven't had time to completely evaluate it. You're not obligated to wait for me for before making any of the changes, but I would recommend that whatever you put in the article is directly verifiable in the sources, without your own additional interpretations. Given that you are a brand new editor (aren't you?), I'm not sure that you should be giving me personal advice about my editing and what you surmise to be my biases. - MrX 🖋 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Draft namrespace
As a user who has expressed an interest in the The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Village_pump_(policy). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on 2A Sanctuary article
Please consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE notification
there is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Xenagoras (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talkback Tulsi Gabbard
Xenagoras (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas3   (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC Consensus / Closure
Can I ask for your advice? See: User:Davemoth/sandbox for my sandbox consensus finding entry in regard to Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Should I publish at the end of the RfC or should it be a New Section?

Should I expand on my methods or thoughts or let editors evaluate on their own?

Do you have any other suggestions before I proceed?

Thanks --Davemoth (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you plan to ping the participants, I think it should be placed at the end of the RfC. This is a bit of an unusual way to close an RfC, so you may not get some editors to agree to it. If I had one suggestion it would be to ask if anyone objects to your closing, rather than ask people to register their agreement or disagreement. Good luck. - MrX 🖋 00:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

China is BS (coronavirus)
It may look like conspiracy theory, specially coming from IPs. But I saw newspapers and US officials with the same train of thoughts. The subject will come back in the next days in a shape or another. This being said, i'm fine with the box. Iluvalar (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't doubt it at all and I'm fine with someone making an edit proposal, referenced to good sources. But comments like "This is a test to see how much BS the world will swallow." are just inflammatory. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Recreating a page
Can I recreate the List of political parties in Southern Asia by country page? Piyyas (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you can . You should just make sure that it is reliably sourced, and that it follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok Piyyas (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

courtesy notification of an A.P. discussion in which you were involved restarting (from February)
See restart here.

Note: There are related elements of context at various pages now, such as Talk:Donald Trump and others (see ESs). X1\ (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)