User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2018

Your plan
Do you still plan on doing what you described here and here? w umbolo  ^^^  21:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have already rolled back some of the edits that I deemed unconstructive. There may be more to be done.- MrX 🖋 10:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Public Advocate of the United States Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Public Advocate of the United States 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) 02:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to New AI-Labelling Campaign for Newcomer Sessions
Hello, I'm reaching out to you because I saw that you signed up as a labelling volunteer at Labels/Edit quality. I'm starting a new project that builds on Edit quality, to predict Newcomer quality. That is, to predict the damagingness and goodfaithness of "sessions" (multiple related edits) of users within 1 day of their registration. With this AI trained, we could help automatically distinguish betewen productive and unproductive new users. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this new labelling campaign and label a few sessions I would be very grateful. In addition if you have any feedback or discover any bugs in the process I would appreciate that too. You can find the project page at Labels/Newcomer_session_quality or go directly to labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ and look for the campaign titled "Newcomer Session quality (2018)". Thanks so much!

Maximilianklein (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC
Please remember that an RfC is essentially a single editor requesting comments from other editors about a question of their choosing. I have asked for comments on what the most appropriate title for the article is, and the discussion I hatted did not concern that question. The subject under discussion in the hatted material is properly discussed on WP:AN, where there is already a discussion you have participated in. In other words "wrong venue" Please do not un-hat again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be on a bit of a power trip. I refer you to WP:TPO "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." - MrX 🖋 11:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring
I understand removing comments if an editor it's topic blocked but when others have already replied you shouldn't remove the comment. Please self revert the removal. Springee (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Please see WP:BE. And do we really need this drama today? - MrX 🖋 19:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Evade, they do not have to be removed and others had already replied to the comments so removal causes a disruption to the discussion. Springee (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it. I'm trying to avoid North8000 being blocked for repeated topic ban violations, but if you prefer, you can raise this at ANI or AE, because more drama is always better, I guess.- MrX 🖋 20:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe checkuser has been performed and it hasn't helped
Enigmamsg 05:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WMF should step in to address this issue. Maybe they will, now that there's bad press.- MrX 🖋 14:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

In reply to your message
MrX, regarding your edit here [], please review the block log,
 * ''Mikeuralot (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is Unrelated to the above accounts but  Confirmed to the following:
 * ''Enlightenthedim (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) ...

The closing said Mikeralot is not a 72biker sock. Further down in the discussion:
 * ''@Drmies and Berean Hunter: do either of you have any clue who the master is in the 2nd group? If not, could a clerk create a new case for them? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ''Tony, that is the correct location and a technical match for HughD. Also confirmed to Group 2,

So the bulk of the editors were HughD socks. Tagging the edits here [] is fine but only if you tag the correct editor. Please reconsider what is basically an against 72bikers. Springee (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want me to look at a log, link to it. I'm not going on a scavenger hunt.


 * The sock was blocked as a sock of 72bikers. Probably because they exhibit specific, identical behavior as I outlined in my SPI report. Your obsession with HughD is borderline bizarre and I have no idea what you mean by "Please reconsider what is basically an against 72bikers." - MrX 🖋 16:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just about to post. I saw that user page tag and now I totally see why we were crossing paths.  I think that is getting sorted out here [].  My apologies since you were working from the tag on the user page vs the SPI discussion. Springee (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My question to Tony is pending. If Mikeuralot=HughD then HughD= 27 72bikers, because there is no doubt that Mikeuralot= 27 72bikers.- MrX 🖋 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait who is 27bikers?! PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * herp.- MrX 🖋 17:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Having interacted with both 72bikers and HughD, I'm certain they are not the same editors. Again, please accept my apologies regarding the talk page edit above.  I can see how you were working from what would normally be reliable information.  Springee (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know this HughD so it seems pretty weird they would use my username in one of their socks. The effect is they are all blocked. Don't really care why. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indenting
Ah, thanks! I've restored your edit. I just saw you amending my post with no explanation... GiantSnowman 13:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I always welcome such edits to my own comments.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitelly Asdisis
Here is important evidence that User:Bilseric and the IP accounts pretending to be someone else supporting him, are the same person: diff.

I will explain it. At that discussion yesterday evening, I discussed only with the IP account. I was asking him for sources, and at middle of the discussion, under pression from me accusing him of not having any further source that that one, he said: It's not irrelevant, and I have provided a secondary source from a contemporary historian saying that happened.

I immediatelly remembered that the only other source presented either by him or "the other one" was this one presented by Bilseric.

I immediatelly started asking him when did he presented that other source, and he got it that he slipped, and avoided presenting it as seen in his answers. But today he couldn´t resist, and he confirmed, as seen at bottom at Talk:Austria-Hungary, that he was refering to that source he presented at the other discussion as Bilseric.

Clear case of socking. He already did that when he was Asdisis and IP´s used to appear backing him, remember. He is so lunatic that he makes this entire theater where he even responds to himself. FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's becoming more evident by the moment. I love when socks talk to their other socks.SMirC-chuckle.svg I would encourage you add this evidence to the SPI that I started here: Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis - MrX 🖋 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never filled a spy report -_- I don´t know where things should go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can add the evidence above to Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis if you want to.- MrX 🖋 21:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I do. Thanks, I will add it there. FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope I added it right.


 * But the problem are not that much the IP´s, because he will return with other IP´s soon, CHetvorno probably remembers when he said he had a program to swich IP adresses whenever he wanted, the problem is that Bilseric is one of the IP´s, and consequently, he is sock of Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What happened now? Was I late? I see the case is closed... Bah, I am awful in making reports. Do I have to make a new report or shall I wait? FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm afraid you we're a little too late. You can either open a new case for Asdisis here: Sockpuppet investigations, or just let it go and hope that he tires of arguing. One way to accomplish the latter is just to stop responding to his repetitive, tendentious arguments (WP:DFTT).- MrX 🖋 00:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Troublesome behavior
I'm writing to your talk page because your actions made me very uncomfortable. You as an experienced editor should have surely known how your closure of ANRFC will make me feel. Even if you haven't known, in my revert I told you to let the uninvolved editor close my request. Then you went to revert me again. I reverted again asking for an uninvolved editor to close. Luckily, then someone intervened and put an end to that. Then you went to my talk page to put a notice of disruptive behavior, although I haven't broken 3rr. I have reverted in good faith so that uninvolved editor makes the closure. How would you feel if you were in my place? This all makes me very uncomfortable, because I feel that you as an experienced editor have done this with an intention. And it makes me very worrisome o think what that intention is. I please ask you to stop doing this. Bilseric (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice
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/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Brad  v 🍁 21:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas
Happy Holidays. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Those are welcome thoughts. Wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year. - MrX 🖋 23:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thank you . Best holiday wishes to you as well. - MrX 🖋 23:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Request
Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you have made improvements, but the article still does not meet WP:ORG guidelines. Please see my comments on the submission.- MrX 🖋 13:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DAILYMAIL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nardog (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)