Open main menu

User talk:MrX

Active discussions

Donald Trump#Racial viewsEdit

Hey there, can you tell me what your objections are to the edit I made on that section? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I will if you can start a discussion on the article talk page.- MrX πŸ–‹ 10:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Ideally I would just make edits that you would also agree with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPPEdit

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).


This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

GreetingsEdit

Β  Nice to meet you ~
~ LOL ~ by the way MrX ~ nice meeting you ~ ~ I'm sure we have a few days ~ I got a lot of reading to do ~ once again nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You too ~mitch~. Cheers! - MrX πŸ–‹ 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory for deletionEdit

Β 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory 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. bender235 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

Β  US Banknote Contest Β 
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.


If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

EndorsementsEdit

Saw you were commenting at the dem primaries endorsement list. These sorts of lists regularly seem rather out of hand regarding the number of non-notable people, unreliable sources/social media, and interpretation of language/original research to define "endorsement". What are your thoughts about the viability of a centrally located RfC to ask questions regarding inclusion criteria of political endorsements lists (inapplicable to individual campaign/election/candidate articles)?

  1. Only notable people's endorsements?
  2. Only endorsements covered by independent reliable sources?
  3. Only endorsements which use explicit language regarding unequivocal endorsement?*

*Not sure how to phrase this one, since the line is clear. Once we moved past use of the word "endorse" itself, it's hard to say where it becomes OR ("I'm formally backing X" or "I am campaigning for X" seem significantly more explicit than, say, "#gobernie" or something).</nowiki>

β€” Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Yes, I would strongly support that. Hopefully it would lead to some sort of consensus. The three criteria you mention would be the most important ones, and there may be others. My question for you is: why should it not also apply to individual campaign/election/candidate articles? - MrX πŸ–‹ 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I envision arguments to treat the latter on a case-by-case basis. A non-notable person's endorsement might wind up getting a bunch of press attention and/or lead to some other newsworthy event such that it might make sense to include in a campaign article, for example. Most of those sorts of exceptions I can think of would apply mainly to the prose, however, so maybe it would make sense to just frame this as applicable to "lists of endorsements" wherever they appear? β€” Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think applying it to any lists of endorsements would make implementation more practical.- MrX πŸ–‹ 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I started a draft here: User:Rhododendrites/endorsements. I'd welcome your edits/feedback (ditto tp stalkers). β€” Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, my inclination would be to post it to WP:VPR (with a likely post to WP:CENT and WikiProject Politics. Does that seem right to you? β€” Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I had a quick look and it seems like a great start. I'll have a closer look at it, probably tomorrow morning.- MrX πŸ–‹ 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Rhododendrites, I think WP:VPR is probably the best place to post it. I would also announce it at WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and possibly WP:WikiProject United States.- MrX πŸ–‹ 20:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

FeedbackEdit

Thanks for the feedback [1]. It's good to receive real feedback. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Steve Quinn. I'm going to propose specific wording in a few minutes.- MrX πŸ–‹ 13:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Good jobEdit

Really good job giving the Trump-Ukraine scandal a haircut (a trim). Thanks. I think we do need someone to do this from time to time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Steve Quinn. All in the spirit of collaboration.- MrX πŸ–‹ 19:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments out of orderEdit

I didn't notice it was out of order - I was using reply link which normally inserts the reply after the last one. Thanks for correcting it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. - MrX πŸ–‹ 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

I noticed that a new editor had made a few repetitive edits to articles that I'd recently edited that didn't seem to be constructive. You had made the previous edit in one case. When I went to his or her contributions page, I found the following and sent this note to another editor, plus copying an administrator, MelanieN:

RE: Nacamier Nunoi

MelanieN (copying MelanieN) In two days, 10/29 & today, this new editor made 109 primary sourced additions of American Conservative Union voting scores to the ledes of recent and incumbent Republican congresspersons. I've reverted 70 and will continue until they're all rolled back but you had made the last edit to a number of those articles before "Nunoi" vandalized them. That's the only thing this editor has done under that USER name. Other editors have probably done rolled back more than a dozen more. Any suggestions on how to deal with it as he or she will probably continue to vandalize articles? Activist (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

data dump

Help User contributions For Activist talk block log uploads logs filter log Jump to navigationJump to search

(newest | oldest) View (newer 100 | older 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

21:01, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Doug LaMalfa β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2602:304:45AA:E4E0:85D9:F698:481A:123A current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 21:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206β€Ž m Bruce Westerman β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 21:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž Steve Womack β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201β€Ž m French Hill (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Rick Crawford (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201β€Ž m Andy Biggs β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by S0091 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž m Paul Gosar β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:57, 30 October 2019 diff hist -199β€Ž Don Young β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -199β€Ž m Gary Palmer (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206β€Ž m David Schweikert β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Cardiffbear88 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž Debbie Lesko β€Ž Reverted 2 edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž Mo Brooks β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205β€Ž m Mike Rogers (Alabama politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Bradley Byrne β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:51, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206β€Ž m Tom McClintock β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:51, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205β€Ž m Kevin McCarthy (California politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Devin Nunes β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by MrX current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -214β€Ž m Steve Knight (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2600:100F:B00D:A99A:CD08:D127:C6C2:359C current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -217β€Ž m Ed Royce β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Ken Calvert β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Mimi Walters β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Koavf current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:48, 30 October 2019 diff hist -207β€Ž m Dana Rohrabacher β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Citation bot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Duncan Hunter β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž m Scott Tipton β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200β€Ž m Ken Buck β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž m Doug Lamborn β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Mike Coffman β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by RandomUserGuy1738 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž m Neal Dunn β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Yosemiter current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200β€Ž m Ted Yoho β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2601:18A:100:FC70:91E3:82F0:BC70:272C current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Ron DeSantis β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201β€Ž Bill Posey β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted unsourced, inappropriate edit to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:42, 30 October 2019 diff hist -193β€Ž m Mike Enzi β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž m John Barrasso β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist +722β€Ž User talk:Pvmoutside β€Ž β†’β€ŽSpeedy deletion of vandalization edits current rollback: 1 edit 20:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -196β€Ž m John Cornyn β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Tobby72 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -196β€Ž m Bob Corker β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by InternetArchiveBot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž Lamar Alexander β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195β€Ž m John Thune β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195β€Ž m Mike Rounds β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195β€Ž m Pat Toomey β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198β€Ž m Rob Portman β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Edgar181 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:57, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195β€Ž m John Hoeven β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94β€Ž m Dean Heller β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -86β€Ž m Ben Sasse β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Eruditess current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93β€Ž m Steve Daines β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93β€Ž Roy Blunt β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94β€Ž m Roger Wicker β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94β€Ž m Thad Cochran β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 86.162.251.142 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95β€Ž Bill Cassidy β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:53, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95β€Ž m Pat Roberts β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by OneToughNerd current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:53, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93β€Ž m Jerry Moran β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by Citation bot (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -89β€Ž m Joni Ernst β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by Baane247 (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -86β€Ž m Todd Young β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by 2601:600:9880:55E0:9DE5:7995:2B68:3B1E (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -92β€Ž m Jim Risch β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2600:100C:B203:6CBD:D1F0:1E8:C84A:9019 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -92β€Ž m Mike Crapo β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94β€Ž m David Perdue β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2606:6000:CC8F:9C00:85BA:E81F:5B62:71D6 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95β€Ž m Johnny Isakson β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by OneToughNerd current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95β€Ž m Cory Gardner β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by PrimeBOT current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93β€Ž m Tom Cotton β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by SunCrow current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:48, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž Daniel Webster (Florida politician) β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206β€Ž m Gus Bilirakis β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside Tag: Rollback 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Vern Buchanan β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200β€Ž Brian Mast β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:44, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž m Carlos Curbelo β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:43, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž Buddy Carter β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205β€Ž m Drew Ferguson (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž m Karen Handel β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Trevdna current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203β€Ž m Rob Woodall β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Austin Scott (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204β€Ž m Doug Collins (politician) β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200β€Ž m Jody Hice β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:39, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206β€Ž Barry Loudermilk β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropraite additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:39, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Rick W. Allen β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:38, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202β€Ž m Tom Graves β€Ž Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:38, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201β€Ž RaΓΊl Labrador β€Ž Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropraite additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:37,

Activist Links rather than a screen scrape would be helpful. If I understand what is happening here, these edits look like classic spamming (WP:NOTVANDALISM) to me. Rolling them back is the right thing to do. I will leave a warning on their talk page. - MrX πŸ–‹ 21:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, {X1/, MrX, Paleontologist99, Pvmoutside

Thanks. You're right, MrX. Just sending the URL for the editor's contribution history since the editor's entire work product in a couple of days existence on Wikipedia came over two days would have been more efficient. I find it hard to believe that he or she has never been here before under another identity. What was done was not what I would narrowly consider spamming since the 100+ articles that were edited each were individualized with a different ACU score. I wouldn't venture to guess what the motivation was to do this. Hopefully, the editor disappear after this outburst. I've added a few more editors to my heads up since they also had edited to articles just previously to Nacamier_Nunoi's additions to the ledes in each article. Activist (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Activist: I suspect you are right about the user having been here before under a different user name. conservative.org is used as a source 132 times in other articles.[2]- MrX πŸ–‹ 11:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

FamiliarEdit

Your recent edit summary reminds me of the words at the top of my user page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! Β  - MrX πŸ–‹ 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Rolling BlockEdit

Re: Your comment about me being given a rolling block should I WP:FORUM.

What is a rolling block? I read the page on blocks and am still confused. It appears that blocks stop you from editing, but bans, unless global do not. So why would I be blocked from editing for expressing an opinion.

in that regard I do realize my tendency to express my opinion, and will exert effort to hold in check. However, I just reviewed a number of articles and their subpages especially on Donald Trump, and take notice that there is a whole lot of SOAP BOX/FORUM going on. Editors more senior to me are quite skilled in avoiding FORUM by adroit use of NPOV, AGF and even charges of FORUM amongst other devices. Especially irksome when their own attempt to hide their POV's bleed through in their talk page edits and article edist.And what I have noticed is that tags like WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX are too often used as tools of censorship. Instead ofWP:IDLIT slap a WP:FORUM, especially on a noob and you get the same results. One positive result has come of this affair. I've long, at least for the last two years, become accustomed to my fragile mortality,and also the undeniable reality that not one thing going on in the world, not in politics, not in the environment, not in economics, in anything has any effect on me and how I live out the rest of my life. So, after talking to myself, I decided to give it a rest. I didn't warm the planet, pollute the oceans with plastic,but I have fouled the air with driving and farts. Nothing that is argued about, nothing that happens in the political sphere will have any effect on me, so let them have at it...just thank my good fortune that I am not a Kurd or some other miserable peoples that find themselves in harms way, or starving because of global climate change.

I would gladly give up WP anyway, it does seem to be overrun with POV pushers of a particular cultural proclivity. But it has been a way of occupying my time, and (vainly) hopefully do some good for future generations, but with constant editing of articles that is a false opinion. The drift and slant of articles change over time as this or that social attitude changes. So why bother, I ask myself. It isn't worth the heartache and sleeplesness. Letting lesser lights get under my skin and giving them free rent in my head is insane. So consider this a WP:FORUM if you wish. I don't have that much time left. My mother, whose ashes were scattered in the Atlantic, or my father buried in a National Cemetery, care not about such things as causes so much consternation, and neither will I, So let all of the silly people vent their spleens, rupture their veins, try to heal their wounded ego's, go on vengance rolls, try to save the world or bend it to their designs and comfort. It is all for naughtOldperson (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, here is my friendly suggestion, which you are free to ignore if you wish: Spend 90+% of your editing time improving encyclopedia articles about non-controversial topics, or doing other useful work in non-controversial areas. Do not behave like a moth drawn to the flame of controversy. This is a general purpose encylopedia, not "Controversypedia". Take a look at the articles I have written and expanded in the last ten years. The vast majority are entirely non-controversial. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328Agreed, good advice from an editor I respect. I will follow it. Except I don't know where to look to find those articles. Oldperson (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly, a person with a life as long and rich as yours must have a wide range of interests besides the controversy du jour, Oldperson. Simply employ the skills that you use to seek out a wide range of controversial topics, and instead seek out non-controversial topics to edit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328 Problem is that I don't know how to seek on WP. I don't have the tools.Where to start? How to start?. All I know is the stuff on my watch list. I have not a clue as to any other articles, unless I happen to stumble upon them. I still don't know what a rolling block entails.I can chase down stuff from other editors which have posted on the controversial articles which caused me problems, but those editors only get involved in these controversies,so bad example. One editor who was giving me grief spends the majority of their time, blocking and banning and reverting as if they were a Commanche counting coupeAnyway outside of haunting Teahouse, which isn't very productive, I have not a clue. maybe if I could patrol AfC.I might be able to help. I certainly can't edit for grammar and syntax, about all that I can do is help someone get started or jump over hurdles. Which is what I have done for three would be editors so far. So I really don't know where to start. If I follow the admins and editors with whom I have (negatively) interacted I wind up in the same negative territory as before because that is where they spend most of their time.Oldperson (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
To start out, take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal, which is linked in the left hand toolbar. There are countless suggestions there. Also, think about where you grew up and the various places where you have lived over the years. Consider working on local history and biographies of influential people who were active in those areas 100, 200 or 300 years ago. Are you a fan of unusual musical performers who are notable but not "world famous"? Perhaps those articles need work. Do you have some hobbies? I used to be a California mountaineer when I was young, and so I did a lot of work on biographies of California climbers of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when I was getting started on Wikipedia. Do you have some favorite museums? Perhaps you could improve articles about them. The same goes for favorite notable but less famous artists. Pablo Picasso is already well covered. Do you know of a well-established, widely reviewed restaurant? Often these articles are in very poor condition. And so on. Good luck, Oldperson.
Sorry for dominating your talk page, MrX. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Got a digital camera? Go to Special:Nearby and list "interesting Wikipedia articles about places around you" (it also lists uninteresting Wikipedia articles about places around you). If an article includes an image, the image is shown in the list. Look for articles about places around you that need images. Go to those places and take pictures of them. Upload the pictures to Commons and add them to the articles. Fun and easy. I could help with the technical details when you're ready.
If you have any digitized photos from your travels, see if any of them would improve existing Wikipedia articles, even if the articles already have images. Example: Image captioned "Dumping at an RV campground in Canada" at Recreational vehicle terms (top of an ex's head). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Β 
Arlene Blum in 1977 003
The photos do not need to be digital. I took this analog photo using film 42 years ago, and here it is in Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
True, if you have a color scanner, know someone who has a color scanner, or are willing to pay someone like FedEx Office to scan them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Oldperson It looks like you have already received great advice from Cullen328 and Mandruss, so there's not much I can add. You referred to "rolling block", but I wrote "escalating blocks", which means a short block on the first offense, followed by increasingly longer blocks for each subsequent offense. As a rule of thumb, comments on a talk page should be made with the clear purpose of changing the article, and they should be specific and citable to reliable sources. They should not be worded in such a way that those holding a different point of view are so shocked and/or offended that a political argument ensues.(Examples: [3][4]). Talk page comments should be succinct and on point (how a political issue affects you personally is not on point).
There are many opportunities to improve Wikipedia. My advice is to follow your interests, but non necessarily topics that you are emotionally invested in (like politics, social justice, climate change). Writing articles from scratch as you have already done is a great way to contribute. You mentioned restaurants. Several years ago, I assigned myself the task of writing several bios for Michelin starred chefs after watching a biopic on Paul Liebrandt. Often, as I'm reading online, I will come across an interesting subject like Lick Me I'm Delicious, Marengo warehouse, or HΓΌgelkultur that's begging for a Wikipedia article. If you need help coming up with subjects in your area of interest, I'm happy to lend a hand. That's not to say that your contributions in American politics are not welcome also. You just need to focus your efforts on specific edits backed by specific sources, without the extra commentary.- MrX πŸ–‹ 11:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I had never heard of rolling blocks and Rolling block was no help. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

QuackwatchEdit

It is apparent that you have only superficial knowledge about the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, or even their articles here. To even use the word "blog" about QW is really a mind blower. If you had read the articles here, you would not have written what you wrote, and doubling down isn't helping you. When someone starts a comment about a red flower by accusing it of being a terrible smelling blue flower... That's my point. It's about that bad. It's apparent that they have not seen the flower or even smelled it, or they have forgotten previous encounters, or there is some other explanation for the odd comments.

For those of us in the health care field, we understand these matters and the value of QW. Others may not appreciate that, and should probably not get involved in these discussions.

Yes, Barrett is the Editor-in-Chief, with a small paid staff and huge volunteer network. A small, but prominent, portion of the articles are written by him. He is widely considered a subject expert, he's a published author, expert witness, government consumer protection advisor, etc. Now he's retired and has slowed down, but his work is still available and useful, and he still updates and corrects it.

The only ones who ever write negatively about QW and Barrett are quacks and others involved with alternative medicine. When we tried to find negative statements and criticisms about him we could use in his biography here, it was very difficult to find any in RS, and we really tried. His biography contains it (or maybe there were two criticisms in RS?). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, it's hard to take you seriously when you bloviate like that.🀣
I'll paraphrase what I wrote a couple of hours ago: if you want to show that Quackwatch is a reliable source, especially for BLP content, you should be able to show that other reliable sources routinely cite it; that it's under some sort of independent (from the author) editorial control; and that it has a reputation for fact checking. Telling me that there is "volunteer network" does not accomplish that. Show me that JAMA, The Chicago Tribune, or ABC News have cited Barrett's quack watching expertise and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
By the way, since you say you work in the heath care field: with the trillions of dollars spent on heath care in the U.S. alone, how come the industry can't manage to cobble together its own authoritative resource to expose quackery? - MrX πŸ–‹ 20:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
MrX, check the Quackwatch article, you'll see something of a list of other reliable sources that cite QuackWatch. But I don't blame you at all: QW always looks odd to those unfamiliar with it, because it is almost as old as the internet and was quite possibly the first site dedicated to critiquing quackery. We're used to a certain way of websites presenting themselves. QW predates all of that by many years. It's very Web 1.0, it doesn't care about SEO or responsive design or any of that, it's 100% about the content. Guy (help!) 11:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I'm always happy to look deeper, but I don't have time to make it a major research project. As with everything on Wikipedia: links and diffs make the argument. The site is definitely Web 1.0, but I dispute that it doesn't care about SEO...

<meta name="keywords "content="acupuncture, alternative medicine, complementary, integrative, cancer cure, chiropractic, chelation, fraud, herbs, aromatherapy, Braswell, Gero Vita, healt care, homeopathy, chiropractor, chiroprctic, naturopathy, naturopath, homeopath, quackpot, miracle diet, consumer protection, naturopathy, MLM, holistic, quack watch, quack, quakwatch, quackery, quackwatch.com, quackwatch.info, fitness, health, fluoridation, diet, cancer, quackbuster, medical, quackbusters, chiropractor, nutrition, diet, exercise, detoxification, detox, cellulite, cancer treatment, vaccines, vitamins, supplements, vaccination, quackwatch.org, health fraud, quackwatch.net, quackwatch, scam, stephen barrett">

it's just not good at it.- MrX πŸ–‹ 11:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This is about you performing due diligence before commenting on the subject. The first place to start is both articles: Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett. They have been vetted, sourced, and discussions about them have occurred in multiple venues at Wikipedia. Your OR investigation would ignore all that and be a waste of time that carries no weight with me or other editors. Just read the articles. It won't take long. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for pointing out the TBAN violation at Breitbart. Guy (help!) 11:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Β 
Hello, MrX. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump inquiry in leadEdit

The link to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections seems to have been agreed and was in the talk page versions up to MelanieN's at this diff shortly before you edited the article. If your omission of the link was inadvertent, could you please restore it? SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It was an oversight. I will add it.- MrX πŸ–‹ 18:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

Β Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald TrumpEdit

Hi. I'm amazed that an article about Trump's racial views would not include his call for the nation to condemn racism, bigotry and white nationalism as mentioned in this article. [5] Any thoughts? Birtig (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have thoughts and I shared them on the talk page three days ago. Let's keep the discussion there. - MrX πŸ–‹ 23:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

American OversightEdit

I supplied your requested cite for the characterization of the group as "liberal." Lots of right-wing sites (i.e. PJ Media) call it that, but better sources do as well. I posted the NYT characterization as liberal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/23/us/politics/pompeo-trump-ukraine-impeachment.html I think David Brock founded it and it's supported by liberal donors. A 501(c)3 they're officially non-partisan (as is Donors Trust). They seem to be doing some very good FOIA work which is how I recently became aware of them. Activist (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks Activist. - MrX πŸ–‹ 14:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Thanks for your continuing dedicated editing. Activist (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You are making a series of bad revertsEdit

You are making a series of inappropriate reverts. For example, where lede material is sourced in text. It need not be sourced as well in lede. But you incorrectly claim it is unsourced and revert. And you destroyed other proper edits - why? --2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a source that states Scott Burcham is an American-Israeli. Perhaps you could point it out to me. - MrX πŸ–‹ 03:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The fact that this month he obtained Israeli citizenship (you deleted that fact from the lede, rendering him only an American citizen) so that he could play in the Olympics for Israel was reflected here ...

In November 2019, he obtained Israeli citizenship so that he could play for Team Israel in baseball at the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.[1]

2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You also for unexplained reason deleted that he majored in Economics. With the supporting ref. Why would you do that?
And you reverted other proper copyedits. 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "U.S. Baseball pros arrive to claim Israeli citizenship, qualify for Olympics". Haaretz. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
Are you joking? The source does not refer to him as an American-Israeli. - MrX πŸ–‹ 03:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Why would you think I am joking? The wp article already indicted that this American-born ballplayer was American. The only change I inserted in this regard was adding the result of his having obtained Israeli citizenship this month. If you are both American and Israeli (and there is no indication he did anything but add Israeli citizenship - which is clear, and is the one part you deleted) then you are American-Israeli. American and Israel both allow dual citizenship with each other as you can easily see from the wp article on the dual citizens, so this does not shock anyone. You, however, faced with an article clearly stating that he had become an Israeli citizen, deleted both the rs support and the text. Why? 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
See for example this article ("Twenty-four players, many with dual American-Israeli citizenship, are playing for the team ...") as background, on the phenomenon of Americans taking on Israeli citizenship and becoming American-Israeli to play baseball for Team Israel. And this one ("fueled by its soon-to-be American-Israeli comrades, Israel will compete"). And this one ("a forthcoming documentary...follows both new and old faces as 10 American-Jewish baseball players become dual American-Israeli citizens in order to compete."). 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good faithEdit

MrX, a while back I inadvertently stepped on your toes at one of the notice boards. I wanted to show good faith and removed my comments [[6]]. Your comment here [[7]], in my view, crosses a similar line. I think the material is problematic per WP:POLEMIC. I understand that you don't agree but your reply largely didn't stick to the subject at hand but instead was directed at my motives etc. For example, suggesting I didn't request similar for other user pages is half true. I did request similar several years back with HughD. Also, keep in mind that part of the issue with Snoog was concerns related to Battleground and I'm not the only editor who feels that having such information on a home page looks like an enemies list. If it's seen that way then such a list is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Also, your comment about the dictionary looks like sniping to me as I didn't pick the term. It's the term used by WP:USER to describe the relevant section WP:POLEMIC. While I would rather you agree with me, if I didn't make my case we enough that is fine and you should say so. However, the suggestion of motives, dictionary comment, "mind your own business" essay, etc doesn't make your point any more valid while adding more overall negativity (please see my comment here [[8]]). So with that said, I would like to ask if you would please rephrase your objection to the merits of the argument rather than motivation or definition of terms I didn't define. Thank you Springee (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well, but some advice for you: taking multiple bites at the apple to get someone sanctioned does not reflect well on you.- MrX πŸ–‹ 18:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe I was taking multiple bites. I think those comments are not helpful but it wouldn't result in any sanctions, just simple removal. For what, while I do think that material should be removed, I'm fine with the overall outcome. See my comment here[[9]] and somewhat related comment here I'm not looking to punish, only to address concerns [[10]]. Regardless, thank you for your consideration and edit updates. Springee (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That Yellow BoxEdit

Greetings. Just wanted to apologise for breaking any page specific rules. The initial edit was reverted as uncited and labeled OR; something it was obviously not. Unaware that the page had special rules (no notice shows up in the mobile version), I added a citation. I would, however, like to point out that the statement as it stands in that paragraph needs to be adjusted as it appears on first read to be a fact; despite being disproven, or at least dismissed, by the person claimed to have had such feelings.
given your position within the site you may want to look into that. A discussion on the talk page of such a charged article is bound to be fruitless. The talk discussions are filled with political bias in every direction. However given the situation there, you may want to adjust that paragraph to be factually accurate.
on a side note; as I state above that "yellow box" does not, or did not, appear in my pre-edit. Double checking just now it remains missing. You may want to look into that. I only found the "yellow box" by carefully reading "above the edit window" and loading the edit page now on my computer. If this is a common enough occurrence across phones, tablets, etc., this could be a rather large problem. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank for stopping by Lostinlodos. We can discuss the the content on the article talk page so that other editors can participate. I've already open a discussion here: Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Recent change to the lead. You can also check out some of the related discussions on talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal. I'm not sure why you didn't see the yellow warning box. It appears above the edit window, not in the edit preview (I assume that's what you meant by pre-edit). You may want to ask at WP:VPT if you are having trouble seeing it. I would just urge you to be very careful editing any articles related to American politics. Many of them are subject to WP:1RR and consensus required before restoring reverted edits. - MrX πŸ–‹ 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Added discussion to Ukrainian oligarchs page to work out our disagreements.Edit

The unrelated kinsman (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Whenever you get chance, have a look at the above and give feedback. TUK currently blanket reverting the information he wanted in the article at this point because of "consensus" that he wants to be part of, but wont explain his objections beyond hurt feelings. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Koncorde & The unrelated kinsman, OK I'll have a look when I clear my mind. Probably late morning UTC. - MrX πŸ–‹ 03:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

In PeaceEdit

Hi, I thought your

Please familiarize yourself with our basic content policies and guidelines before you dive into the deep end. Other editors should not have to waste their time explaining WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR every time you think you have found a new angle for inserting your POV into the article. - MrX πŸ–‹ 18:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

in the Talk:Hunter Biden was bulling.

Since we have both been editors for over a decade. I think we both know how to be civil or we would not still be here. I understand that you are working with the others on the article trying to manage the non stop interventions by generally clueless people with strong political points of view. Since I am outside of the US, I am less emotional about the subject, and I understand that US politics at the moment are very very decisive. Anyway, I try not to get involved in US political articles. My view was that something was missing in the article since upto $ 50k per month is a very small/strange amount for Hunter Biden to take for the flack associated with going onto the board of a Ukrainian gas company, and all the sources show that the actual amount was $ millions. So I thought the article should reflect the sources. You disagree which is fine. Move on. RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not bullying. That's mild criticism and guidance, which is well within the norm of conduct standards at Wikipedia. You have made 41 edits to the talk page, focused entirely on promoting a marginal narrative that Hunter Biden was on the take. You have gained no traction in that effort, because you show a lack of understanding of our basic policies and guidelines. For example:
  • Here you attempt to conduct original research based on a self-published source.[11]
  • In early October, you promote content based on based on John Solomon conspiracy theories.[12]
  • Here you show a poor understanding of WP:WEIGHT.[13]
  • Here you ignored advice from a more experience editor and instead doubled down.[14]
  • Classic WP:SYNTHESIS.[15]
  • Promoting a debunked conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had the Ukraine prosecutor fired to protect his son.[16][17][18]
  • WP:REHASH: [19]
  • Original research again, and again, and again.[20][21][22][23]
You need to have some clue to work on articles about controversial subjects. As some point, much earlier than the present, you should have realized that consensus was firmly against your proposals and you should have moved on. Instead, you persist in what, to me, appears to be war of attrition. You should WP:DROPTHESTICK and apply your 12 year/933 edit experience to improving the encyclopedia in other areas. Personally, I've reached the limit of my patience. If you don't stop pushing these edits, I will raise the issue at WP:AE and there is very good chance that you will be topic banned, based just on the evidence I've provided above. Word to the wise.- MrX πŸ–‹ 14:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed thoughts. We disagree, and I think the above reflects your point of view. lets stay Civil, and move on.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace DoveEdit

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Buster7. Happy holidays to you as well. - MrX πŸ–‹ 18:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MrX".