User talk:MrX/Archive/July-September 2015

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Rollback
I am using rollback to revert massive, misguided changes per ROLLBACK, fifth criteria which reads "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". See this discussion.- MrX 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've undone the more recent ones. Thank you so much for all your help on this! :) -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Attract and Repel   ‖ 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Glad to help Ebyabe. I have rolled back several hundred in Florida and Washington. There are quite a few articles in other states that hopefully will be taken care of by other editors eventually.- MrX 17:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you very much Hugh!- MrX 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Cs california (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Jeb Bush
You have been edit warring today at the Jeb Bush article, refusing to engage in discussion at the article talk page, deleting an image that has been stable since June 22, and incorrectly assessing consensus. Please stop or you may be blocked from editing. Also, please be aware that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I didn't refuse to engage on the talk page. I made my views clear in the RfC, as did four other editors who happen to agree with my edit. Conversely, only one other editor agrees with your choice. Please explain to me how that is "incorrectly assessing consensus". "Stable since June 22" is not grounded in policy. Does it occur to you that your aggressive editing is what kept that image in the article since June 22?


 * Also, giving me a DS alert right after I alerted you and using my own words like you did, is more than a little immature.- MrX 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI would now be the best venue to continue discussing this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
You are the subject of an ANI discussion which you may access by clicking your mouse here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

AE
Hi, MrX. I have closed the Collect AE request and imposed a block plus a one-way interaction ban with you. I saw no justification for making the ban mutual, but I trust you realize the responsibilities a ban like that places on you. Many people would be quick to react if they thought (with or without justification) you were taking advantage of the situation in any way. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Thank you Bishonen.- MrX 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Cookies!!! - MrX 19:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Balkan Wars
Hi! Just want to say I agree with your idea on how to deal with the ethnic conflicts. Looking at Talk:Nikola Tesla it's amazing how much time and effort of ordinary editors are wasted on them. Another effect of such feuds is that they scare off objective, nonpartisan editors from participation in articles where they are needed. -- Chetvorno TALK 06:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * True. That's why I proposed a topic ban, although an outright ban or indefinite block is very possible as well.- MrX 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Echosmith
WP:DOB reads in part ..sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. The members of the band have listed their full names and birth dates in various social media posts, therefore the presumption is they do not object to the information being public.  Nyth 63  15:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links that would be usable as sources? If the band's website links to the social media profiles where these social posts have been made, then they can be used. If not, then we must have some other way to establish that the social media profiles belong to the BLP subjects, such as a listing in an ironclad source. Let's continue the discussion on the article talk page.- MrX 15:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are abusing the 3RR rule and misinterpreting the PRIVACY rule. The birth dates were in the article for an extended period of time and were removed recently by another editor which I restored and then added sources.  Your last change was to wrong version.  You certainly did NOT receive a consensus from a discussion on the talk page. Please restore the information.  Nyth  63  17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I will not restore improperly cited BLP content, nor should you. Please see my comments on the article talk page.- MrX 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am claiming exemption from 3RR under the vandalism rule. The last edits by TheRedPenOfDoom should not have been made while the discussion is on-going. There have now been FOUR different editors trying to remove the same information from the article.  That is an edit war. I am only reverting the unwarranted and non-consensus edits.  Nyth  63  01:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You really should read NOT VANDALISM and rethink your position. Editors are routinely blocked for exactly the type of editing that you have engaged in today. I'm sure you mean well, but you're being obstinate and you're ignoring the consensus evident in the fact that four editors have reverted your edits.- MrX 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

DuBose disruption
I asnwered the call when you asked for help here. Now I'm in need of similar help on the same artlce. The IP is being way too aggressive, very often using extremely poor reasoning and judgment, and violating AGF, and at this point I'm the only one resisting him. The article enjoyed relative peace until he showed up, and now I'm being steamrolled by an editor who has 12 edits prior to 24 July. I have issued two template warnings in the past 24 hours. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I was just reading the talk page and trying to wrap my head around the various recent discussions. If you will give me about 60-90 minutes to take care of some RL tasks, I'll join in.- MrX 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Single-sentence paragraphs
Re this, do you have an aversion to single-sentence paragraphs? As I said in talk, I feel that's the most important sentence in the section, and setting it off adds emphasis and reduces the likelihood it will be missed. It's probably not worth debating in article talk, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but I don't know whether you saw my comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all and I don't follow any firm rules. My criteria is that if it is closely related to the previous paragraph and doesn't change the topic, then it can be included in the previous paragraph. In this case I think it fits nicely in the previous paragraph, but I also wouldn't object to it being included in the subsequent paragraph that begins "In bodycam footage, Tensing repeatedly...". All that said, I don't feel strongly about my edit.- MrX 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

New discussion
Hi, Spotify not working on windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.90.31 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Why are you telling me?- MrX 23:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Information about my village Mona Syedan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Information about my village Mona Syedan. Since you had some involvement with the Information about my village Mona Syedan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JZCL 09:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
You reverted my edit on Bernie Sanders saying that it was not in the article cited that Sanders was a member of the Socialist Party of America. In the article it says that while at the University of Chicago, he was a member of the Young People's Socialist League. YPSL was the youth organization of the Socialist Party of America, and it is is currently the youth organization of the Socialist Party USA. Thanks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the 'party' field in template:Infobox officeholder is for the current party to which the subject belongs. I don't think it's appropriate to list an organization that Sanders was a member of 55 years ago. If you disagree, you may want to raise it on the article talk page to see what other editors think.- MrX 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually I see old party affiliations listed. See Elizabeth Warren for example.  I'll mention it on the talk page. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Zachary Hammond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oconee County. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  X-cellenz

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 940th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank's, you're a gem. I hope I never ever stop being precious! Be well. - MrX 00:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Samamtha Giles (golfer)
Dear Mr X, why have you proposed to delete the article Samamtha Giles (golfer). Multiple references have been provided to authenticate it. Please could you provide advise or shall I remove the deletion notice. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cornish Golfer (talk • contribs)
 * Because when I proposed the article for deletion it had no references. WP:BLPPROD allows articles about living people without references to be deleted. Since you have since added references, the article will not be deleted. You can disregard or delete the deletion notice on your talk page.- MrX 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump Image
Thanks for being more professional about it, I'll concede to what you think is best because of how professional it was written. Best regards. Sovietmessiah (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Happy editing! - MrX 14:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission templates
Hi. I noticed in this version of Draft:Albert Thain that the AFC template you added carried a notice just above the green "Submit" bar: "Warning: This submission is not timestamped and so will be permanently at the back of the queue. Please replace this template with ." As "Subst:submit" would actually put it in the queue, I replaced it with {{subst:AFC draft}}. With that and "subst:submit", you need to add the author's name as a parameter, otherwise the system thinks you are the author. I'm not that familiar with these templates, and have to look them up at Template:AFC submission. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks so much for letting me know. - MrX 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Coco (2017 film)
Hi, can you please stop redirecting Coco (2017 film) to Coco (movie) please as the first is the better article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, once I realized that you implemented the reverse redirect at almost the same time, I self-reverted.- MrX 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you, Coco (2017 film) is the better article and shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased writers are allowed to give biased opinions as fact
All of the political pages are 100% biased in one direction. This is why no one will ever accept info on Wikipedia as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave812 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Review
You remarked on my talk page that I should not have marked Vechoor church as reviewed. Sorry for the error. I was waiting the recommended ~10min delay before PRODing for notability. Mop Seeker  Fox  Three!  02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. It's best not to mark a new article as reviewed until you have either nominated it for CSD, AfD, or PROD; added cleanup tags; or you have evaluated that the article meets our basic standards for new articles (notable, sourced, categorized, etc.). - MrX 02:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for flushing out the sock puppets pushing the nationalist POV at the Tesla article. Michael Cambridge in particular has been extremely disruptive and has been using the mantra "I am not a sock puppet" and really just accusing anyone who won't share his revisionist beliefs of being anti Croatian. While I am sure this person will come back in another form this will improve things for a while. Chillum 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure,, I'm glad to help. Most of the credit goes to who determined that Michael Cambridge is the master of the two socks, not Asdisis, although I still think there is a relationship between Michael Cambridge and Asdisis.- MrX 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I don't think they are the same person based on their different levels of literacy I would say that they seem to be coordinating. Chillum 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush
Did you read the article that was cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
 * Yes. - MrX 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

From the article: "Jeb Bush Got $1.3M Job At Lehman After Florida Shifted Pension Cash To Bank"

"Then, in the fall of 2008, Lehman collapsed into bankruptcy, leaving Florida facing up to $1 billion in losses."

Please reread article, thanks.


 * Your article edit: " earning $1.2 million per year, after shifting pension funds to Lehman while governor, resulting in over a $billion losses to Florida."
 * $1.2 million should be $1.3 million
 * a $ billion should be $1 billion (or one billion dollars)
 * There's also a problem with how you wrote the sentence. It implies that shifting pension fund to Lehman was the cause of the $1 billion loss. (See post hoc ergo propter hoc). That's why I opened up a discussion on the article talk page. Let's continue this discussion there.


 * Please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~ . Also, you should indent your posts by inserting a colon before each paragraph for each level of indent (see WP:TPG and WP:Tutorial/Talk_pages. - MrX 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Source evaluation
Please review sources before removing them. You removed an item, first for the reason of a "pseudo-scandal", then again removed it again by claiming information regarding the location and billing information of Hunter Biden discovered in the Ashley Madison data breach was lacking in the source. These items were included in a screenshot in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.121.142 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did review the source. The content that you attempted to add originated with breitbart.com, a notoriously unreliable source. It has no place in an encyclopedia biography. Also, screen shots are not sources.- MrX 19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic the Steve Scalise article needs some cleanup since its a stormfront post picked up by a random blogger. Once mainstream sources pick up the story, and especially once they are addressed by the subject, it is reliably sourced, regardless of the ultimate origin. Keeping this out smells of POV especially when other examples (duggar) are let through. In reality, the entire story is unreliable, as its hacked data released by admitted blackmailers. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , how nice to see you! You were so quiet, I didn't even know you were there.


 * No, not really. Scalise admitted his involvement and it was widely reported by numerous media outlets. Same with Duggar. If it later turns out that multiple reliable sources report about the Hunter Biden profile on Ashley Madison, then I have no objection to adding it to his bio, without any original research of course. - MrX 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far ABC, People, TheHill, and a few others. We shouldn't say he had an account, but an account with his name is there, the story has been discussed by RS and he is publicly discussing it. its a clear case of WP:WELLKNOWN Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it doesn't merit inclusion in his bio at this point, but you're welcome to boldly add it if you believe otherwise. - MrX 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reminder
Mark your CSD pages as patrolled. Charlie the Pig (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I only mark pages as patrolled if I'm sure that there are no other problems with the pages. This allows them to be reviewed by other new page patrollers. Also, since WMF has apparently lost interest in maintaining the Page Curation widget, I tend not to use it much. See my comments at WT:Page Curation. - MrX 21:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis
Apologies if this is in the wrong section. My additions to the Kim Davis material is based upon material I've sourced. In the case of her significance I'm using international newspapers - I've referenced the UK, Japan and Australia on the Talk page, though could doubtless add more if it were relevant. While I do not debate the fact that a federal judge ordered Mrs Davis's incarceration it is because of her inability to authorize homosexual marriage licences. And contrary to your claim that no such licence exists the phrase is a common English reference to the kind of licence rather than the specific form used. Without any intention of being offensive, or drawing parallels, it would be no different to discussing an alien marriage license. This would be a marriage license for aliens but would presumably be no different to an "America marriage license". A parallel may be drawn with same sex marriage, a term used on this website and elsewhere which reflects the fact that such a union is perceived as different to normal marriages. Whether you consider the substance different is irrelevant in the context of how they are perceived. Clear? 人族 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. She was jailed for contempt of court arising our of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. You wrote that she was "jailed for refusing to issue homosexual marriage licenses". There is no such thing as a "homosexual marriage license". In fact, the content of your edit and your subsequent explanation are so absurd that I can only conclude that you're a troll or a sock of previously blocked-user. - MrX 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived
The Collect and others arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Will the clarification be logged on the case page? - MrX 13:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As a formal motion was not passed, it will not be; it will simply be recorded on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the information. - MrX 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Of Ouija Boards and Morrissey
Under the "In Popular Culture" section of the article for Ouija Board, you deleted the subsection "Music", along with the entry for Morrissey's song, "Ouija Board, Ouija Board", citing the reason: "Unsourced and trivial". Regarding "Unsourced": I am perplexed, as both the song title and the artist were linked to their respective Wikipedia articles (each fully sourced). And regarding "trivial" - about which I would fully agree with you if the section was not titled "In Popular Culture" - I feel you inject far too much subjectivity into your assessment, particularly when considering the popular film titles - left safe from eradication - currently residing within the section. If, instead, your use of the word "trivial" here concerns the degree to which the song deals with the subject, then I regret to inform you that thousands of Wikipedia entries with "In Popular Culture" sections await your hack & slash. You have your work cut out for you. But fear not, Champion! Go forward! Excelsior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm noted
 * There is no doubt of the song title refers to the subject of the article, however Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources according to WP:CIRCULAR. In Popular culture sections should consist of meaningful prose backed by enough sources to show importance, especially for a popular culture topics like Ouija board. What we don't want are Listverse style lists of random trivia because of course trying to construct an encyclopedia. Yes, there are many, many article with such trivial lists and rest assured that I and other editors do our best to remove such content. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - MrX 13:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was confused because, since the corresponding articles were themselves fully sourced, I thought the links sufficient (plus I have seen this done on numerous occasions). I suppose I could have cited the same sources located on the respective page (for the song), but it seems like this would create redundancy. If this is general policy, won't this indeed lead to a lot of repetitive bloat? I respect and agree with your decision regarding the triviality of the song as it pertains to the subject. However, there is still a part of me that worries about an atmosphere where editors are deciding for readers which artistic objects within popular culture sufficiently speak to the subject and are thus "acceptable". I wonder if that approach tends toward and fosters elitism. As I'm sure you know, people approach and develop an interest in cultural objects from a variety of angles - which is why I included the listing for the song. I am not aware of other songs that deal with the subject matter, and so it seemed harmless. All in all, I am glad people like you are at the cutting block. Particularly with where the world is heading, we need more hard fists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does generally try to avoid making subjective decisions on its readers' behalf. The essay MrX linked lays out a simple principle: if reliable sources think it's meaningful that a topic was referenced in popular culture, we do too, but we don't just let editors go hunting for trivia wherever they can find it. FourViolas (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This makes more sense to me, and I thank you for clarifying the policy. I was not hunting for trivia, but rather happened to be reading the Ouija Board article and noticed the In Popular Culture section, and thought I could contribute to the encyclopedia to the best of my ability at the time. I do sincerely apologize for the error. However, I am still a bit fuzzy regarding how a popular song that was a single from a popular album released by a popular artist, and which possesses its own Wikipedia page (with reviews from Allmusic and NME), and which was cited as having caused a subject-related media response at the time of its release, does not sufficiently meet the criteria for an In Popular Culture section. I would not have added the information otherwise. Please inform me if I am missing something here. Otherwise, I will re-add the edit, which I feel - based on the criteria kindly provided by you and MrX - is appropriate. Thank you again for helping me out - both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My edit has been re-applied, this time with the necessary references and summary statement. I have reviewed the criteria for In Popular Culture sections (thank you for this information) and I am confident in my edit. In the future, and this goes for all editors, it would be beneficial to help users new to Wikipedia who appear to be approaching the project with good faith. Rather than actively looking to shut them down, we might instead extend an open hand and try to encourage them. Unless I am wrong and the intention of Wikipedia is exclusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Comedian's Guide to Survival
Hi MrX, thanks for your message. I was wondering - I've placed in articles referring to the film from the UK press. What else can help me confirm its notability? I've gone through the wiki list and I believe that I have confirmed it. Any help will be appreciated - I'm a newbie! Thanks Thesmteam (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)ThesmteamThesmteam (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good. I've removed the tags. WP:NFILM can provide specific guidance. As I mentioned before, you have to use your own words when writing on Wikipedia, so please be mindful of our copyright violation policy. - MrX 13:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much MrX! I'm forever indebted to you; happy to learn :) Thesmteam (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)ThesmteamThesmteam (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Every one of your claims of OR has been proven to be false at the talk page. I mean this with all sincerity: You need to stop this style of editing or you are likely to be sanctioned. - MrX 20:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the following comment on the Kim Davis Talk Page regarding the whole debate over the article cited in the section on Davis's salary:




 * I wanted to let you know here, since the talk page for the Kim Davis article has become almost as long as the text of War and Peace, so it might get lost in the shuffle.


 * Also, PraetorianFury's talk page is filled with similar issues in the past (including the fact that he had been blocked under a previous username (see User_talk:PraetorianFury). So he has quite a history of these things.Plvt2 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know . I can't say I'm surprised. Hopefully the disruption has stopped. - MrX 12:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681815382 your edit] to Carly Fiorina may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * record/ | title=Fact check: Carly Fiorina didn't have a great run as CEO of Hewlett-Packard | work= Fortune (magazine) | date=September 17, 2015 | accessdate=September 19, 2015 | author=Gandel,

Kim David
Just curious whether you think the conduct at the above page rises to the level of AE yet. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. I really prefer not to be the person to bring it to AE, but there is plenty of evidence that this editor is not adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. If you decide to pursue this at AE, I think you would be on very solid ground, and I would certainly have a statement to add. - MrX 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't spam my talk page. just because you don't agree with me.
Please don't spam my talk page just because you don't agree with me. I won't be intimidated. I will remove all bias information after discussion on the article talk page. Multiple users have removed factual information and added bias information. As I learn more about wikipedia, I will learn how to combat such behavior. Your knowledge of the system does not intimidate me.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but do you mean the welcome message? We routinely welcome new users to Wikipedia with such messages. They provide helpful links to tutorials and other useful information. Honestly, you're the first person who's ever complained to me about them, and I've welcomed hundreds of users this way. - MrX 00:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You only posted this after I refused your requests. I will not be intimidated. Your passively covert scare tactics won't work. Please refrain from posting on my user page, thank you.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish. - MrX 01:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

MrX: I suspect your already aware of this, but Hawtpeppers edit history shows he made one small grammatical edit early yesterday, but then started editing in earnest just 6 minutes after the last edit in PraetorianFury's edit history. Since there is a good deal of similarity between the tone and editing style of each account, doesn't this look like a rather obvious sock-puppet. (I've already noted PraetorianFury's past history of similar reaction to being restricted). I've not had a lot of experience with these issues, as most of my editing has not been the sort of "breaking news" stories that tend to encounter these issues (the Kim Davis article is the first time that I've tried working on such an article), so I'm not sure what process should be followed to report this issue. But something should be done (otherwise administrative sanctions become meaningless).Plvt2 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That actually hadn't occurred to me and I'm usually pretty good at detecting socks. I may have to look into that further. The process for reporting sockpuppets is WP:SPI, if you think you can make a case with behavioral evidence. Thanks for the heads up. - MrX 23:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may butt in, similarity in tone, sure. Both are off-the-scale combative and confrontational. Which is not uncommon around here. That's where the similarity ends, in my opinion. PF writes at grade level 11.1, HP at 7.8. PF can spell the contraction "it's" correctly, HP spells it as "its". PF is a total PITA, but he clearly thinks at a much higher level than HP. If it's a sock situation, it's an extremely clever one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. On the other hand, I remember a certain trappe made of steel who's sock wrote at a grade level 5.1. It does happen. - MrX 23:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rules (WP:SPI) appear to make it almost impossible to prove such a suspicion. But the timing of one account's last post being just 6 minutes before the new account becomes an active editor, together with similarity of tone, still makes me think they're the same person.


 * As to the lower apparent intelligence and/or skill of Hawtpeppers: It's easy to play someone with less intelligence and skill: just throw in the occasional spelling or grammatical error, and leave out the continuous citing of Wikipedia policies, like PraetorianFury was doing (while making similar complaints about an article, just without the citations), and you pretty much have Hawtpeppers. Also, Hawtpeppers' first edit was fixing a very slight (and easily missed) grammatical error, showing possibly higher writing skills than his later posts indicate.


 * In any case, about the only thing we can probably do, is watch his future edits, to look for clues supporting or refuting my concerns.Plvt2 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes the effort to pursue sockpuppet investigations is just not worth it. - MrX 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Koch
Since you were the other editor who joined Wikiproject Koch, I wanted to tell you I listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Koch. We have other projects related to politics and political figures so I'm curious if you think this is a feasible WikiProject as is or more problematic than likely workable. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA
Hey, maybe you should get yourself a pair of admin glasses. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought . I wouldn't mind the glasses and the rouge T-shirt, but you can keep the rest of it. I've been here long enough to realize that it's not a role that I would much care to have. You all deserve medals for what you have to endure. Stay well. - MrX 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that bad, you know. We don't always get yelled at. And you'd be good at it, though I haven't asked for their opinion. Either way, I'm very pleased that you're on board, with or without tool. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drmies. That means a lot to me, coming from someone I respect so much. - MrX 03:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * About once a month I get the urge to write an essay about how veteran editors who are not admins have certain advantages over admins. One is that admins have to worry about whether they are WP:Involved. Another is that veteran editors can jump in and quickly fix problems that need fixing, whereas admins will often go through proper channels, discussing the problem in a way that delays the eventual fix. The non-admin has less to fear with repercussions from very bold editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with X, those admins who aren't in it as a control or ego trip have my undying respect and gratitude. You deserve some pay, or at least a medal. God knows I could never do it, now or twenty years from now. I gather X feels similarly, he's wise enough to know what works for him, and I like him too much to suggest that he do that. Further, high competence is also needed in the non-admin ranks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is xtraordinarily perceptive - I've hardly heard such a true statement. It should be graven on a marble slab and installed permanently for all to see. If an admin as much as farts at the party, it's frog-marched to ANI where the peanut gallery is waiting, teeth bared, knives drawn, pitchforks sharpened, bayonets fixed, and boxes of matches for the pyre. A non admin can smash all the crockery, throw the food out the window, the pies in people's faces, and the cutlery at the admins, and get away with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bink nailed it, as usual. Ordinary editors can actually have a lot of influence on the project, usually with greater latitude. That's actually a large part of why I'm not interested in adminship. Also, the pay kind of sucks. One of the few "benefits" that admins do actually have is that WMF has a fund to assist with legal assistance. - MrX 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to come for support for MrX and now, reading all this. well, umm I better go back to what I was doing. -&#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you . I see you have been tapped for adminship as well. I would certainly support that if you decide to run. - MrX 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

First mover advantage and author name format
Since you create articles, thus establishing some local conventions by virtue of FMA, I wanted to take a shot at swaying you as to author name format in current-event/social controversy articles. What think you about adopting First Last? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the sources are news sites which almost invariably use "First Last", requiring editors to spend a little additional mental effort reversing the name.
 * My impression is that "Last, First" is something we borrowed from academic circles, and I don't see any practical rationale for it in current-event articles.
 * In the rendered citation, it's hard for me to distinguish between those tiny commas and the tiny semicolons, so in a long string of authors I tend to lose visual track of which is first and which is last; "First Last" eliminates the commas.
 * "First Last" avoids problematic situations such as when the source uses three names for a woman author; is that center one a middle name, in which case it would be in the first parameter, or does she view it as part of her surname, in which case it should be in last? "King Jr., Martin Luther" seems more than a little cumbersome to me, as does "MacArthur II, Douglas". There are other weird situations that don't come to mind at the moment.
 * The argument that most articles of this type use "Last, First" doesn't carry a lot of weight with me; other stuff exists and the existence of bad stuff doesn't warrant the creation of more of it.
 * Some (most?) ref tools impose their authors' "Last, First" preference on the user, but the refs created by them could be changed after they are in the article, either by them or by someone else. You just need some way of documenting what the article's convention is, such as a hidden comment at the top, or even an edit notice.
 * I have a couple of answers. First, although template:Cite web describes the author field as freeform, the widespread convention on en.wiki is to use follow the Last, First Middle convention, as far as I can tell. I'm not inclined to break from this on a local level for the slight benefit of reducing editor effort. Second, and more importantly, I think we should be using last, first, last1, first1, last2, first2, which is less ambiguous, machine-parsable, and it's more likely that when scanning a reflist for an author, you will be looking for the last name. Of course author would still be used for organization author. The only reason that I don't currently use these is because it would require a change to ProveIT, which requires making a request to the developers on GitHub, or forking the code and coding it myself. Of course, this would not address your fourth bullet point, to which I don't have a solution. Thirdly, I strongly believe that this entire encyclopedia should be on single, metadata based citation scheme, but of course we can't solve that here. - MrX 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Undue Weight
What do you mean by undue weight? From all the media and analysis I see, her performance is slipping, and media outlets, her social feeds, all are talking about her attempts to put this behind her. Its not undue weight at all.  Spartan7W  &sect;   18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I commented on the talk page. I agree that it is a major current event and it relates to her campaign, but we have an article on the controversy so there's no need to go into exhaustive detail in the campaign article. We also have four links, which is two more that we should. The photo and caption are my largest concerns. A photo of Hillary does not add encyclopedic understanding about the subect (the campaign, or the email controversy). It paints her in a bad light, as if to link her campaign announcement with the controversy.- MrX 18:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Some of policy area needs to be excised where it overlaps with political positions. That's my biggest problem. When they have policy proposals, cover that, like I have done for Jeb Bush so far under economics.  Spartan7W   &sect;   19:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Climb Online
Hi,

The page 'Climb Online' was recommended for Speedy Deletion as it is ttoo similar to a previous deleted page. Now, I checked out that previous page & it had one line of text, no references & nothing like the detail of the sort of article Wikipedia standards expect.

With that in mind, as an independent author, I have compiled this article. It is of interest to me & of interest to anyone who has heard of or watched the UK version of The Apprentice, who follows Lord Sugar or follows Mark Wright who won the show last year. This amounts to millions of interested viewers who want to know how the business is progressing & what has been happening since the show finished.

Kindly remove the recommendation for speedy deletion in light of this, & discuss this with me, rather than simply deleting the article without any warning.

Kind regards, WoodinShades — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodinShades (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The speedy deletion has been removed by an administrator, but I'm concerned that the article is really poorly sourced and promotional. I'm afraid that if you can't add some reliable sources citations (independent of the subject), then the article will be deleted again.- MrX 01:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
I reverted you here. Was this deliberate on your part?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FUBAR pending changes! I rolled back some vandalism, but apparently the subsequent edit was also vandalism. The pending changes diff that I rolled back was this, so I have no idea why it rolled back just the subsequent edit.- MrX 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature of article
Apparently I seriously misspoke four days ago. I'm clueless! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I was wondering about that answer.- MrX 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Be patient
If the RfC produces your preferred result, then you win. Don't pre-empt it. WP:BRRR is disruptive. Please leave the last stable version in place until the RfC concludes. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What? I reverted one time because you reverted to a previous version which includes material contrary the current talk page consensus. Where do you see any level of consensus for including this in the lead?


 * ...and more more spectacularly, you reverted again after I (once) removed this material. You have some chutzpah telling me to be patient!- MrX 02:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know how WP:BRD and WP:Consensus work. I restored the last stable version, and we have an RfC ongoing by which you can potentially have your way entirely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted once; you reverted twice. It's that simple. You restored content that you claim is a stable version, but really, you just restored a version that includes material that most of the editors who have commented oppose but that you prefer. Like CFredkin, you edit war to get your way and you Wikilawyer to justify it. Since the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, I imagine that your behavior will catch up with you soon enough.- MrX 02:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the last stable version, pending the outcome of an RfC that I started in order to bring peace and closure to this mess. If you'll be patient then we get peace and closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Continued
This edit of yours is baloney. Your edit summary: "The 30,000 employees were not laid off as a result of the merger, according to most sources. e.g. 'In her five-and-a-half years in the top job, the company’s stock price almost halved and she fired 30,000 US workers'." So, you're relying upon a news article in The Guardian (from March) that spends all of one sentence discussing layoffs, and which makes a vague and general statement that in no way contradicts all the reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia article, which say that the 30,000 were laid off in conjunction with the merger. This is, if you'll pardon me for saying so, really lousy editing on your part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I sometimes make lousy edits, but not intentionally. Maybe I made a mistake. I will check more sources to see if I did, and meet you back on the article talk page.- MrX 14:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You deleted a talk page comment of mine here. I therefore reverted.  Please feel free to add comments without removing any comments of others.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I have no idea how that happened.- MrX 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Per your admission above that you sometimes make lousy edits, you've done it again in the Fiorina lead. You previously agreed that she fired 30,000 people while hiring more than she fired --- but now you disagree that she hired tens of thousands. What kind of drugs are you taking? Are you "Debbie Wasserman Schultz"? Please get a grip, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please mind your manners, and discuss content on the talk page.- MrX 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The question about Schultz seemed more appropriate here than at article talk. If you are Schultz then I advise that you declare a COI.  Thanks.  As far as civil tongues are concerned, your endless edit summaries accusing me of "campaigning" and the like are baseless.  My goal is neutrality here, and it is quite a struggle with editors like you around.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're joking, or if you really mean to be that denigrating, but I don't appreciate where you're headed with your comments. - MrX 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I seriously would like to know whether you have a COI. A simple "no" would end the discussion.  Also feel free to explain how my comments here are any more denigrating than your accusatory edit summaries ("editorializing", "cherry-picking", "campaigning", et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have any COI whatsoever.
 * Here are all of my non-automated edit summaries for Carly Fiorina. Please point out the ones that are personal attacks:
 * Yes, I do dispute this. Per WP:LEAD don't introduce new material into the lead. Please gain consensus for this wording on the talk page and show multiple sources that make this bold claim..
 * Trimmed puffery
 * Removing non-notable opinion that states the obvious. Removing partial PolitiFact quote which is taken out of context. Also, this content in this source represents a minority view point.
 * Tweak for neutrality and to remove original research. These seem to be the only facts that most everyone agrees with. See talk:Carly Fiorina.
 * Removed content derived from Perkin's advertisement. No consensus for inclusion. See talk:Carly Fiorina.
 * Tweaking language to conform with source and remove some slight editorializing
 * The 30,000 employees were not laid off as a result of the merger, according to most sources. e.g. "In her five-and-a-half years in the top job, the company’s stock price almost halved and she fired 30,000 US workers."
 * I'm seeing about a 70% consensus in favor of inclusing this well-cited material.
 * Rescuing some material that was accidentally lost in the re-ordering of this section
 * Inexplicable content blanking.
 * CE with cite
 * I think it's probably OK to remove the expansion tag at this point.
 * It's not as if it will be easily confused with Lucent Technologies, LLC
 * expanded with cites
 * The tag says this section requires expansion, so I have expanded it with cites.
 * It's not reasonable to restore content contrary to an emerging consensus and multiple discussion reject the WP:SYNTH addition of marginally related content.
 * There seems to be pretty solid consensus for including the layoffs in the lead, and no consensus whatsoever for the dot com bubble commentary in the lead.
 * Removing as there seems to be no current discussion about the neutral POV of this section
 * This equivocation is inappropriate for the lead of a biography.
 * There is obviously no consensus for including this content based on the current talk page discussion.
 * WP:UNDUE quote. This should not be added unless there are several sources indicating it to be noteworthy
 * This information is already in the lead. Being a pre-primary candidate is not a significant role.
 * - MrX 14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of your edit summaries are perfectly civil. Reasonableness and correctness are another matter.  What set me off today was this one: "Yes, I do dispute this. Per WP:LEAD don't introduce new material into the lead. Please gain consensus for this wording on the talk page and show multiple sources that make this bold claim."  WP:Lead does not say to never introduce new material in the lead, for then no lead could ever be expanded. If you mean a lead should not include material not in the body of an article, I think you know perfectly well that that was not the case here, and I also think you know perfectly well that the added material was well supported by the cited sources.  CNN, for example, obviously supports that she hired more than thirty thousand, which in turn obviously supports that she hired tens of thousands. And, the very mathematics that leads you to interpret other older sources as conflicting with CNN again supports her hiring tens of thousands.  It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that you and Cwobeel are doing the very thing that you've falsely accused me of doing  in your article and talk page edit summaries: "campaigning" and "editorializing".  In the space of a day you've gone from saying "WE AGREE!!!" about a claim to saying you disagree about a much weaker claim, and these gyrations and oscillations are not helping the discussion.  Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this.
 * If you want to discuss content, please do it on the article talk page. If you think my conduct is inappropriate, you can raise your concerns at ANI or AE. If you have a problem with Cwobeel, take it up with him. Consider yourself warned that I will not continue to tolerate comments like: "What kind of drugs are you taking? Are you "Debbie Wasserman Schultz"?"- MrX 17:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As you like. If you had told me what kind of drugs, I might have ordered some for myself to even things up.  Personally, I would prefer you to say "Anythingyouwant must be Dick Cheney" than "Anythingyouwant is violating the five pillars".  The latter is typical preparation for seeking sanctions, unlike the former. Cheers. 😍Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any objection
Hi MrX, hope you are doing well. Would you have any objection to my pinging all the editors who have commented on the Kim Davis talk page, inviting them to our discussions? My intention is simply to get good editors to the table to get their wise comments, pro or con. I am not trying to pick and choose only specific editors who would vote my direction or anything. I also don't want to be accused of canvassing; my only criteria is editors who are familiar with Kim Davis and have proven their familiarity by commenting in some way, pro or con, on the article talk page, but may have wandered off lately and may not be watching the article any longer. I went to Archive 1 and collected all of those names. What do you think? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. I think it's a good idea to ping them in the context of a neutral comment inviting them to join the discussions.- MrX 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great; yes, we probably need more good heads put to this problem. I have the list here of about twenty names. Now another couple of clarifying questions, please: Do you think I must go to their talk pages to personally invite them or can I just ping them in a single sentence from the Kim Davis talk page, do you think? Also, do you remember that WP:AE that ended in a topic ban for one person. There were three admins there that I would like to invite for their wisdom, as they are familiar with the subject also (but of course they may decline); do you think that is okay also? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think pinging the editors who have been active on the talk page is appropriate. I don't think that pinging AE admins would be appropriate, unless they have also been active on the article talk page. - MrX 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your wisdom and for everything you have done for this article. I have just pinged the editors and invited them and everyone else watching the article to this new RfC. Thanks in advance for your own comments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You as well, . - MrX 14:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Andrew Lawrance
Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Andrew Lawrance, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Chnaging to more relevent CSD. Thank you. Osarius - Want a chat? 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hi, I'm Hermera34. I did not delete the BLP tag you posted on Bhagyalaxmi Pani, as I, too, agree with your addition. I just combined it with the other tags I added. If you disagree with this, please let me know why. I've returned it back to my latest update. Hermera34 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed it back. The BLP PROD needs to be conspicuous. Also, we don't need a BLP sources tag in addition to BLP PROD, and an orphan tag is useless for new stub. - MrX 15:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. No problem.  Hermera34 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Information - recent AfDs
Hello MrX, as you commented on several of my recent nominations, see my newly created list at Sockpuppet_investigations/Orangemoody for your information. If you notice similar patterns, please report them too. From the first announcement of the Orangemoody case it was unfortunately clear, that this socking is a large-scale operation and will not be easily discouraged with a few 100 blocks of throwaway accounts :/. GermanJoe (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will. I just tagged Buy1 Get1 for CSD G5 per this and Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles.- MrX 15:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

UPSaaS diverting
Hello. Can you please remove diverting the UPSaaS text to the UPS. thanks BESAGland (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Can you first show some reliable sources that indicate that it's a notable subject, as required by our inclusion guidelines?- MrX 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

UPSaaS
Hello Mr. X! I'd need better guidance of how to modify the text. Would adding www.upsaas.org or www.burlandenergy.com be enough? BESAGland (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can start here: WP:YFA. Then you will have to find sources in magazines, journals, newspapers or books that discuss the subject in some detail. This shows that the subject is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article (see WP:GNG. The source should then be cited, just like in a research paper. See WP:RS and WP:CITE for more information. Does that help?- MrX 13:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)