User talk:MrX/Archive/April-June 2016

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Clayton Chitty

added links pointing to Commercial, Primary, Model, North Vancouver, North Vancouver, British Columbia and Lifetime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to close AfD discussion

Hello, can you please close the AfD discussion for Abdul Rahman Shaikh, the article was nominated for not having correct sources after which the sources were added and the article was left for 7 days as per AfD policy, but after that the article was relisted again since there was not much discussion over it. The article is new and it will take time to grow and also the persons name is so very common that some people get confused about it. The article should be left on its own and slowly it will gain much information and sources. Thank you. Tim Harris84 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. The sources that you added do not seem to be reliable (see WP:RS). Two of them lead to blank pages. You may want to check those and fix the links. The article will not grow if the subject is not notable and sources cannot be found. In fact, I'm wondering where all of the unsourced information in the article comes from. If you have a connection with the subject, you should really consider not writing about him. (Please see WP:COI).- MrX 11:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Belated thanks

While I disagree on the substantive point, you prompted me to take the block to ANI for review, which I absolutely should have done unprompted. Thank you for keeping me honest. Guy (Help!)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Energy Catalyzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PACER. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, I was wondering if you could adopt me? I saw you were available for adoption on the adoption page, are you still open to adopting people? If so, please leave me a message! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elsa Enchanted. I'm afraid that I will not be able to offer much help due to real life time constraints. Of course I would be happy to answer your occassional questions and point you in the right direction as the needs arise.- MrX 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be sure to ask you anything I need help with! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

New section

Hello Admin, thank you for your message. I agree with you and wiki policy and have no doubts, that Wikipedia I keeping right side in educational or in any field of knowledge, but there are a lot of issues when Wiki allows to publish many incorrect information, which is damaging image of whole State and providing unchecked information of history, culture and other information regarding nation or individuals. As for my post( sorry for my bad English, I am self learned) I can tell why this organization is "special". I am new member of your society and creating/editing of this page took little bit long time for me and I was just started "warming up" and did not finished yet.

People who founded this charity organization, were one of first in Georgia, who provided such kind of service since 1992 when USSR collapsed and in each soviet republic began civil war. It is very sad for country which announced its Independence and in very early days faced such problems as war, refugees, homeless people and etc. Rustavi has history which is beginning from ancient time and had a good days and bad days. people who were creating country and this town, must to be known for next generation. It is not easy like "google search" Shelters, single elders houses and charity organizations were not usual for us.

That is why I am trying to write about them. If you have suggestion to create different page or create one list of all organizations, which were involved in Charity since that period that is ok for me. I know that such kind of information is better for blogs or internet sites, but why not for Wikipedia? If there is any other form to deliver my information through Wikipedia I will be happy to hear about it or you could guide with suggestion. That is all I want to tell. Thank you once more again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer1de (talk • contribs) 20:54, April 16, 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi Gamer1de. I'm not an admin, but you're welcome. Of course we want articles in Wikipedia that meet our notability requirements, and that can be verified in reliable sources. You might be interested in reading WP:YFA for helpful advice on creating articles on Wikipedia.- MrX 21:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, my changes to Faithful Word Baptist Church were NOT incorrect

Um, my changes to Faithful Word Baptist Church were NOT incorrect. I've been to the border patrol checkpoint where Pastor Anderson got tased. It's just after mile marker 78. You're the incorrect one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.22.116 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @68.13.22.116: I'm sorry, but we cannot use your personal experience/research on Wikipedia. This is explained in our policies WP:OR and WP:V. Happy editing!- MrX 17:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping to be adopted

I am writing my first biography for Wikipedia and because I'm used to academic writing, keep finding myself diverging from encyclopedic writing. I have posted several questions in the Teahouse, but I'm looking for someone I can talk with on a regular basis to make sure I'm not using too many peacock phrases, to answer my questions about relevance and so forth. I'm still tweaking the article in my sandbox, but think I'll be ready to submit it for editing by the end of May. I'm hoping you will adopt me because you're the only person on the adopter list who says he's interested in biographies.Drvalsummers (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers. Welcome to Wikipedia! I would be happy to adopt you for purpose of answering your questions and reviewing your work in progress. Just let me know of any questions as they arise.- MrX 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to help. (1) I would like my lead to be "clean" looking without a lot of reference numbers and links to other Wikipedia articles. Is it alright to leave out citations in the lead paragraph as long as I have included them in subheadings? (2) In the Early Life and Family heading, I have included birth/death dates of McCormack's family. Should I include these? (3) I read somewhere in the Wikipedia rules that rootsweb.com is not a reliable source for genealogy. What should I use instead when I cite his parents' and wifes' information? (4) Have I included too much information about his son, Arthur, who is also a notable person? I'm thinking perhaps I should temporarily stop working on my article, create another sandbox to upload a shorter article about Arthur McCormack. That way I could have more writing practice and also simply link to his article instead of including so much about him in the Early Life and Family heading. Drvalsummers (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) Yes, you can omit references in the lead since the same content will be referenced elsewhere in the article (see WP:LEADCITE). Wikilinks in the lead are mostly a matter of editorial choice (guidance here: WP:LEADLINK). I usually include links of they can help the reader, but of course, you should avoid OVERLINKING.

(2) No, you should not include the subject's family's birth/death dates, unless the dates have relevance to the main bio subject.

(3) Rootsweb.com is not generally a reliable because it consists of a lot of user generated content lacking editorial oversight. However, it may lead to other usable sources like published genealogies or vital statistics records. You do have to be careful with primary sources though and take care not to engage in original research. It looks like you already have cites for his parents and wife. Is there some other information on rootsweb.com that you want to include?

(4) I don't think you have included too much information about his son, but a separate article about Arthur would allow you to trim the material a bit.

Your article is fit for publishing in the (main) article space now. You don't have to submit it for review, a process which is usually quite backlogged. When you are ready to publish it, I can tell you the steps to take, if you don't already know how to MOVE an article.- MrX 02:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) How can I set up a second sandbox (before I finish in the first one) so I can quickly write an article about the son and link to it? (2) I realize that the terms 'original research' and 'primary sources' can be vague. I'm trusting that the ones I'm using such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the official minutes of a state agency will be considered legitimate citations. I realize the one I'm using to say that McCormack was the 'lead' physician is questionable because it was written shortly after the incident occurred in 1900. Are newspapers from the days surrounding an incident credible--just as the New York Times? (3) I need to make some changes/corrections to citations I've already entered. Do I do this manually by typing the new information or is there a way to get back into the template I used when I entered the citation? (4) Many of the references are available online at Hathi Digital Trust through University of Michigan. Is there any problem using links to this for "accessed on"? I've been planning to wait until I'm ready to publish before adding adding "accessed on" dates. Shall I go ahead and do this now? Many thanks Drvalsummers (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) To set up an additional sandbox (sub page), search for User:Drvalsummers/PageName where PageName is the name you wish to give to your new sandbox page, then click on the Start the User:Drvalsummers/PageName page link. (More information: WP:SUB).

(2) Yes JAMA is certainly reliable, and government records are as well. Contemporaneous news articles vary in reliability, so it's usually better to use modern secondary sources, if available.

(3) You can manually edit citation templates, but it's usually easier to use one of the citation tools. I use ProveIt which can be enabled by selecting Preferences in the user menu at the top right, then Gadgets. ProveIt is in the Editing section.

(4) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "accessed on", unless you mean "access date". If you want to add a url to a book citation, you can add "url=http://something.com" to the template. If the source is a web resource, then you should use the template:Cite web, also available as a drop down in ProveIt.

I hope that helps.- MrX 23:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You said my article is fit for publishing now. I might be ready soon. Before you tell me how to do that, though, please tell me what's going to happen to it after I move it. Does that allow any editor to make changes in it without my knowing it? In short, why do you say it's ready now? Drvalsummers (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

After you move it, anyone can edit it. Also, since it will be published in article space, search engines will index it. Since the article is (presumably) on your watch list, and will be when you move it, you will be able to see when anyone has edited it. I say it's ready know because it doesn't appear to have major issues related to notability, copyright, neutral point of view, and it is sourced. Of course, you should move it when you're ready.- MrX 15:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I've just realized that Wednesday, May 4 will be the 75th anniversary of Dr McCormack's death. I would very much like to move my article on or before then for sentimental reasons. I'm fairly certain that my citations are in order. I have permission from the copyright holder to upload a picture of him and I'm reading the instructions for including an info box/sidebar. It's my understanding that I can complete those tasks after the page is moved. If you're willing and able to help me, I'll be forever in your debt. What do you think? Drvalsummers (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers. Yes, articles can, and routinely do, get edited even after they are moved to article space. It's ready, so do you know how to move it, or would you like me to do it? I may make a couple of edits myself once it is moved.- MrX 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I DID IT! I moved the page from my sandbox, along with the infobox and photo. Thanks for all your help and I hope you'll be one of the first editors to help me make it better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvalsummers (talk • contribs) 19:06, May 3, 2016‎ (UTC)

Congratulations! It looks good.- MrX 19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Katie May

Hi, I undid your BLP PROD on Katie May because it clearly states that she died "from a stroke on 2/4/16". Although with this said, I've put it up for CSD under A7. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense.- MrX 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Scrivito

You're right about this one link, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Thank for for pointing that out, I removed the link in question. I wouldn't agree on the Notability. Scrivito is an established product, but got it's completely own brand apart from Infopark, which is since 20 years in business. So when people are looking for Scrivito, they won't look for Infopark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Witt (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that Scrivito is a notable subject. I can't find any news articles or books that discuss the software. The sources in the article are not WP:INDEPENDENT. The subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. If you are not able to find some reliable independent sources, I'm afraid that the article will probably be deleted.- MrX 21:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Velicham TV Article

Thanks for helping to convert external links to refrence list. Actually I dont know how to create reference list. So it will will be very much helpful for anyone to cite the reference for the article in future. Really good job. Expecting your help in expanding the article.If you have any ideas for the improvement of article let me know.Cheers.--ChatruSamhara (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! I had problems with the official website though. Perhaps you can find the correct URL to add to the External links section.- MrX 19:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to close Somali Faces discussion

You mentioned that it only references one single source. See two independent sources that reference this. Such as https://www.welt-sichten.org/artikel/32198/gesichter-somalias and https://globalnyt.dk/content/somaliske-hverdagsfortaellinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy alive123 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please make your arguments for retaining the article at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somali Faces. I am not familiar with those sources, so someone familiar with German media will probably have to assess whether they are reliable, or simply repeating a press release. Please sign your future talk page posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end. Also, your posts go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top.- MrX 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the Sullivan content from Stop Trump movement

You just undid an addition of mine to the above-mentioned article regarding a quote by Andrew Sullivan. The information was pertinent to the movement, as it referenced an updated direction that the movement is starting to take - actively voting against Trump in the General. I have encountered you previously, and I know that you are prone to slashing, but I urge you to check yourself.

Please see the three posts I just made to the talk page justifying my edits. The article is not a collection of criticisms about Trump; it's about an organized movement to prevent his nomination. It violates our policy on neutral point of view to cherry-pick an especially-damning quote to make Trump look as bad as possible. Also, WP:BRD.- MrX 01:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We are all over the place here and I apologize for that. Would you be opposed to me listing Sullivan's name in the appropriate section with a simple citation for the article (no quote)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I have no opposition to that. We just need to be careful that the people listed are relevant to the Stop Trump movement, and not just some of the many, many commenters who have simply voiced criticism of Trump.- MrX 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotchya and agreed. I mostly just correct typos on Wikipedia and try to do my part. I think this encyclopedia is very important. My Stop Trump contributions were motivated by disgust and repugnance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On the road to 10k AfD Suggestion

Hi. This user has a couple of other related articles including Selftitled, Greatest Hits Mixtape Album, Selftitled Album and Comin' At Ya Live & Direct Mixtape. Do you want to have a quick look and consider adding them to your existing AfD? Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the suggestion Gbawden.- MrX 11:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for adoption

Hello, I am a new user at Wikipedia and I would like to make a request for adoption. I initially thought to learn by myself how to do various things in Wikipedia but unfortunately I was unaware of a number of things and therefore I made many mistakes. As a result another user suggested that I could be adopted so as to learn all things necessary and become a proper editor. I found this an excellent idea and I looked in the list of people who adopt new users. Seeing that we share pretty much the same interests and that you are a very experienced user I believe you would be the ideal person to be my mentor. I am very much in need of proper guidance and assistance as I do not want to make any more mistakes. If you require to know more things about me or if you have any questions please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I would be grateful if you could accept me as your new disciple. Yours sincerely, Irene000 (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Irene000. Thank you for your interest in adoption. Unfortunately, I have very limited time available for Wikipedia for at least the next several weeks due to real life obligations. You may want to check with one of the other adopters. Best wishes.- MrX 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for my late reply. I understand that real life obligations are priority. I followed your advice and I tried to contact some other editors. I contacted two others but no one replied to my request for adoption. I have been waiting for many days now and nobody replied. Do you think it would be wise to try and contact another one? Thank you, Irene000 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend checking user's contribution history to make sure that they are active before asking them to adopt you. Swarm has not been active for almost two weeks. I'm not sure why Esquivalience didn't respond. Meanwhile, if you have specific questions, I can try to answer them for your or point you to other resources. - MrX 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will try to check the contribution history from now on but I would like to wait for some time before I made another request for adoption. In the meantime I decided to start editing minor things relevant to my subject. I would like to know if there is a particular code for adding mathematical formulas in articles. I could always copy a sample code from other articles but I would like to learn how to do it by myself. Irene000 (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the documentation is here: WP:MATH.- MrX 12:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is so helpful! I will go through the documentation and make myself familiar with the code. Thank you very much! Irene000 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dylan Rowell

Okay so you put a BLP prod on Dylan Rowell, yet the guy was born in 1891 (Though when you put it up it said 1998 which was probably a mistake) Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Looks like a hoax-the 2nd South African captain was in 1891-the guy changed the name on that page even. Wgolf (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for stopping by. - MrX 00:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Neutral One"

The posts from this account are decidedly weird - it almost, almost looks like it might be someone running an over-the-top strawman account? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. It looks like an obvious troll to me, but let's hope I'm wrong about that.- MrX 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. I'm tempted to list it to be checked, but (a) I don't know whose sockpuppet it might be and (b) I apparently already have a target on my back, despite being right more than wrong about sockpuppet suspicions. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, where does someone report something like this? I think it's pretty egregious now. "17. No mention of Trump's majestic, rich, luscious locks of hair-- oh, how lovely it is when it blows to and fro in the wind!" - what the heck is with that???? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second... I'll bet this is that Hitler Trump sock!- MrX 21:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that is, but I'll be happy to second any request for a sockpuppet check you fill out? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No need. The account is a  Confirmed sock puppet of Kingshowman (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, amazing work as usual Bbb23. Thanks!- MrX 21:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, rack up another confirm for my socky-sense. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Cupa României Final

How did you think to delete this article ? Everything is fine with the article, there are thousands of articles like this one. See: [[1]] and also for other countries [[2]] and for other Cup competitions around the world.Crenvust (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought about deleting it when I came across it while doing new page patrol. This is an encyclopedia, not a detailed sports almanac. A poorly-sourced list of detailed statistics with country flags, with virtually no contextual prose is not the type of material that belongs on Wikipedia in my opinion, which also happens to be supported by WP:NOTSTATS and WP:N. - MrX 13:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I create it because other articles like this were easily accepted and thus I created this article also because it is about a recent match from 2016 and implicit the continuation of other editions. You should have a look on the templates above. I am not so good in adding prose, but you or anyone else can add the prose and make the article look better, I have just been the starter of this article.Crenvust (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping content that doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Please also have a look at WP:YFA.- MrX 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ST on ANI

Would you be willing to have a look at my !vote here? I was surprised to see your regretful support for a TB based on essentially the same information and was also surprised that no one else had voiced objections similar to mine. If I'm in need of recalibration, I'd like to hear about that as well. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read everything in the thread including the OP's diffs. ST has not taken the advice from the last ANI complaint seriously. He is still rapidly marking articles as reviewed, without adding tags or taking other necessary actions. It took me seconds to find these examples from his patrol log. [3][4][5][6]. Somehow, he's even managing to mark talk pages as reviewed [7][8]. Arbitrary statistics are meaningless for new page patrol. A competent page patroller should have very few instances of unreviewed reviews.- MrX 02:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am having trouble seeing the issues with the four patrols you linked. Juliar, List of Battle Tendency chapters, and Dadzie all seem fine; Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Institute of Engineering and Technology is pretty terrible but it had already been tagged at the time of the review (why did you link a diff earlier than the version ST reviewed?). VQuakr (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Juliar doesn't have a single independent source and almost certainly fails WP:GNG. List of Battle Tendency chapters appears to be a listing of chapters, with no independent sourcing. Dadzie has no sources and no evidence of passing WP:LISTN. Each of these pages should have been tagged and/or nominated for deletion. The link that I provided was directly from his patrol log. I've reviewed the facts and made my opinion known at ANI. I have no interest in debating it further.- MrX 02:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, MrX. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

you missed

Thiel secretly backed Hulk Hogan's multi-million dollar lawsuit against Gawker Media [93] in an attempt to bankrupt the publication as revenge for writing critically of him.

The NYT article carefully notes this claim is from Mr. Denton, and he is only cited as speculating, with no claim of fact asserted by the NYT. The statement "attempt to bankrupt" is, in fact, a claim of an illegal act, AFAICT, and should be rapidly excised. Collect (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC) .

OK, I'll have a look.- MrX 14:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Peter Thiel change

Hi, thanks for your input on my edit of Peter Thiel's article. The item I added to his account was referenced to an article just published in the new york times - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/gawker-founder-suspects-a-common-financer-behind-lawsuits.html. How is that not a good reference? Please elaborate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4101:6320:FC9F:944E:ED0F:2E47 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Update- it has since been independently confirmed by an article in Forbes as well - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#4d34591e7805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4101:6320:FC9F:944E:ED0F:2E47 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The references are fine. The content though was written in a sensationalist tone completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and a violation of our policy regarding articles about living people. Especially alarming was this:

"The trial was notable for including (Redacted)'s sworn testimony affirming the discrepancy between the size of his penis and the size of (Redacted)'s penis. The trial was also notable for excluding the racist comments made post-fornication by (Redacted) while moralizing about his daughter's sex life."

If further discussion is needed about this, please have it on the article's talk page so that other editors can participate. Perhaps you could propose a less colorful version of this content.- MrX 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

New to this

Hi I am very very new to all of this. I figured out just today on how to do all of this stuff and found it interesting and fun. I have a few questions to ask you about. How exactly do you do references? And how do you add an image? I understand that you have to put in a jpg and stuff, but I don't understand the process.I'm still really confused on all the programs and such things. Please help me create a successful page. Exonct (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Exonct! There are about 100 different ways to do references, but if you are not using visual editor, the simplest way is to simply enclose a source URL within <ref> tags like this: <ref>http://anyreliablesourcewebsite.com</ref>. References are placed immediately after the applicable content without any intervening spaces.

At the bottom of the article add this:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Please read WP:YFA to better understand how to create an article, keeping in mind that only notable subjects have Wikipedia articles. You should also read WP:RS and WP:CITE which will help you with references. To add an image, you click on the "upload file" link in the menu on the left and follow the wizard instructions. Once the image is uploaded, you include it in the article by typing [[File: filename.jpg]]. Keep in mind that images must adhere to our image use policy.

After you read some of the tutorials, let me know if you have any specific questions.- MrX 19:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

FYIAnythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - MrX 18:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Free Spin

@MrX:

(Free Spin)

Greetings,

We already discussed the situtiaton of Free Spin article with NottNott, and decided to merge it into another article. I am copying his message below:

Hey Necropsie, it's good to see your rationale behind the page. And yes, making your first edits as a new editor can be very daunting, and I definitely see where you're coming from trying to avoid messing up the original article - it seems like there isn't a place to add the content in. Perhaps there should be a 'features' section in the main article - seems strange how the main article has plenty of content about statistics and legislation regarding the machines but little on its actual operation.

I'll see what I can do to incorporate your article into the main article. It will probably involve bold edits. I'll get back to you! NottNott|talk 10:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Necropsie (talk)

(Free Spin)

Yes, that sounds good, but please don't add any more links or references from commercial websites like casinoave.com. You can learn about citing reliable sources here: WP:RS.- MrX 11:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bondi / Trump controversy

Why did you delete my edit to the Pam Bondi page, documenting briefly the controversy that has swirled around her since 2013 for accepting a Trump donation and not joining the Trump University lawsuit? That is not vandalism. You yourself said last month on the talk page that it ought to be included: "It's important that we follow sources, plainly, without inserting our own theories. The connection between Bondi, the PAC, Trump, and the lawsuit against Trump University has been clearly drawn for us. It simply needs to be summarized in this article as a factual sequence of events in which Bondi, via her political office, obviously plays a central role." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.97 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the material does not conform to the sources, needs to be shortened, and the tone is not encyclopedic. For example, "Bondi has been most frequently mentioned in national news media regarding a controversy..." is demonstrably false, but even if it were true, it's original research to conclude that your own. "The Trump Foundation donation to Bondi's re-election PAC was made in violation of federal law." Is not what the source says. It says "a potential violation of federal rules". As there is already a talk page discussion that you are involved in, that would be the best place to propose appropriate wording and seek consensus for including it in the article. - MrX 16:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

-Why didn't you just alter what you thought should be fixed? The talk page is useless as long as user Niteshift is going to block any and every suggested edit, which he's been doing for years. As for your substantive arguments, there can be no doubt that charities cannot donate to political PACs [from the IRS rules: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."] And the Trump Foundation claims that the donation was made in error. It is hardly a long entry, and appropriate to the degree of controversy this has generated since 2013. So much has been published about it that it would be easy to cite a dozen highly detailed analyses of the facts that go far beyond the spare account I rendered. There are several far more trivial entries on Bondi's page, one of which has no citation to back it up; they haven't been challenged or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.97 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit had at least three problems and was not salvageable. Please take this content issue to the article talk page so that other interested editors can participate. Niteshift can't block anything, but his editorial views do matter.- MrX 19:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• BLP violations can be removed and these entries have BLP issues that haven't been addressed. The basic questions have still not been answered by the SPA IP, who has now stopped discussion and now tries to end around the article talk page. All this "IRS rules..." stuff is WP:OR and illustrates how the IP is here to make a point, not just improve the article. BTW, I'm not the only editor that has removed the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Content that is properly is sourced is not ever a WP:BLP violation. Whatever axe you have to grind with the IP, you can't continual block this content without violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. I suggest that you be very specific about what parts of the content you object to and why. In doing so, you should refer to what is actually in the sources, not your personal analysis of why the sources can't be right.- MrX 03:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• When you're claiming things that the source doesn't actually say, it is a BLP violation. (And yes, sourced material can still be a BLP issue). I have been specific. I just got very specific again. I was giving you specifics while you were putting an unnecessary template on my talk page. I will repeat here that your statement that I'm making a false claim is lacking good faith and you should note that I have shown where the version you just restored without researching actually contains material the sources cited don't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that misrepresenting sources is potentially a WP:BLP violation, but that doesn't justify removing all of the content. I think the template was necessary because your editing behaviour suggests that you are not aware that several editors have been topic banned, and many more blocked, for edit warring on political articles, misrepresenting the WP:BLP policy, and for obstructing the WP:DR process. Also, I never said that you made a false claim (did I?). I suggest that we work on a version of this content that is true to the sources and covers the subject briefly, but completely.- MrX 04:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• We should be discussing the wording on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I am aware of the template content. For that matter ALL BLP's are subject to discretionary sanctions. You apparently missed where I said, a month ago "Of the 4 you presented, the second one is the most neutral sounding and would probably be a good basis to start with if this does end up being included." I've also said that the content is very appropriate for the Trump article since there has actually be a complaint filed against him. I'm not "supressing" anything, just think it belongs someplace else. And yes, you said "You can't just suppress this content and falsely claim that it's a BLP violation"[9]. I usually ignore that sort of stuff, but you're an experienced editor and it's not like it slipped out in a heated exchange. I haven't been uncivil toward you, so I don't know why you'd make an allegation like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right Niteshift36 and I apologize. I certainly did not mean that you intentionally misrepresented policy, so I will strike that portion of my comment.- MrX 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well apparently the work that you and I did doesn't satisfy the SPA who is determined to make it as POV as he can. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you and the IP have since worked it out through editing. The CREW material needs secondary sources in my opinion.- MrX 10:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I doubt the SPA has given up on his wording. I am satisfied with the wording as it stands, after your edits (if the matter is going to be in the article at all). Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP will be blocked if he doesn't stop edit warring and making personal attacks on the talk page.- MrX 13:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I called it correctly. Frankly, the edits he's forcing in are more POV than helpful. I still favor your version. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I put some warnings on the IP's talk page. I don't want to edit war, so hopefully they will be a little more collaborative.- MrX 18:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you collaborate with an edit-warrer who persists in demanding that his own untenable interpretations of sources are the only ones possible? He has consistently made it clear that the only discussion he cares to have with me is one in which I must concede everything to his point of view. He still denies that Bondi said she established the PAC in question. As for personal attacks, Niteshift has been making extremely snide and false assertions about me for the last month in various talk pages. He is a master at projecting his own provocative behavior onto others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.110 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You can both start by assuming good faith about each other, follow WP:DR, and stop attributing motives to each other's editing. Then, perhaps try listening to each other's policy-based arguments and practice the graceful art of compromise. As long as you two continue to go at each other's throats, I have no interest in trying to help resolve the dispute. If it continues though, I will take it to WP:AE and let admins sort it out. It's become extremely disruptive.- MrX 21:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Mr. X and I collaborated. The IP has had no interest in collaborating. Yelling "liar" over and over doesn't lead to compromise. Here is the thing: Some reliable sources say it's her PAC, some reliable sources say it is not. If the sources conflict with each other, we can't just pick the favorite one and be done with it. ALL the sources agree that the PAC supported her reelection campaign. Since that isn't in dispute, why is it a problem to simply state what all the sources agree on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not going to edit war over it. I suppose you can try requesting a third opinion, post an RfC, or take it to WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN.- MrX 01:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no legitimate dispute that Bondi established the PAC. You have the document she submitted saying exactly that when the PAC was created. Niteshift's strained effort to sweep that clear evidence under the carpet is a piece with virtually everything he has been doing with this article, particularly his attempt to build as much distance as possible between Bondi and her own PAC. It is plainly tendentious. As a professional historian, I have learned that if you find yourself compromising with a tendentious person, then your first move should be to figure out where you went astray. It cannot work out well. Every attempt I've made to discuss seriously with Niteshift the facts as based upon source material has run into a brick wall. He will not concede the plain meaning of sources, and maintains that it's unfair to mention this controversy at all on Bondi's page because she has not been convicted of a crime. I have enough experience working with students and others struggling to understand sources and much more complex issues than this one to know the normal pitfalls that non-experts working with bona fides can fall into. I also have learned to recognize the patterns and behaviors of the tendentious 'scholar', for whom there is no source material that cannot be tortured to their preferred end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.221 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that sources are variable about it is a good indication that we should not be using WP:PRIMARY sources to determine the veracity of such a "fact", especially since the article is subject to WP:BLP. In fact, WP:BLPPRIMARY is crystal clear on such matters: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Getting something like this wrong can have consequences for Wikipedia as well as the subject, so just let's not do it. Niteshift36 is within his rights to remove such material that is only cited to primary sources, no matter how many time you attempt to add it back. See also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.- MrX 16:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In what sense are sources "variable"? They use various phrases to describe Bondi's control of the PAC, yes; so what? The nature of political PACs is to create a legal fiction that permits pols to raise money for themselves in ways that would be illegal without that legal fiction. So sources experiment with various phrases that convey information about Bondi's controlling interest without stating it in explicit language. No, the interpretation that Bondi "established" the PAC is not based solely on her own filing. CREW states that she established the PAC. Show me a single source other than Niteshift who denies that she established the PAC, or identifies a different founder of it, and then we can admit that there may be a legitimate controversy. Just because a partisan tries to stir up mud, that does not means there is legitimate controversy. Niteshift makes far too much of his "rights" to remove material. In fact, he has insisted on removing references to Bondi "controlling" the PAC even though multiple news articles have used that exact expression. How exactly do you imagine that politicians' PACs get started? Some random book-keeper (per Niteshift's interpretation) decides out of the blue to set one up and then, behold, the politician agrees to start raising funds for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.221 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can produce a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that says "Bondi established the PAC (that received the donation from Trump)", it can't go in the article. Even then, you still need to get consensus, no matter how right you think you are. I'm also going ask you to stop complaining about Niteshift36 on my talk page. You're bringing me down.- MrX 19:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

CREW is a reliable secondary source, and it asserts that Bondi established the PAC. Incidentally, the page you cited says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." My assertion that Bondi says she established the PAC is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact about that document, which requires no specialized knowledge; one simply has to read the form. This is essentially the PAC's birth certificate, and in fact easier to read than most birth certificates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.221 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And in case it slipped your attention, the document in question, a "Statement of Solicitation", is required of FL cabinet officials only if they solicit or receive contributions for/from a PAC that they have established, maintain, or control. Bondi submitted the form, first of all, and secondly she declared explicitly that she both established and maintains the PAC. Where is the possible room for dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.221 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a link to this secondary source that says Bondi established the PAC. We don't allow original research here, so the secondary source is what I'm interested in. Please be sure to sign all of your talk page posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ - MrX 21:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• The CREW press release itself is careful to say the PAC is "associated" with Bondi, not controlled by her. Why would they do that if it is as clear cut as is being asserted here? I've provided numerous third party sources that use wording like "tied to Bondi's reelection campaign", "pro-Bondi group", "associated with Bondi". Let's stop pretending like I am relying on a single source or that I fabricated it. Reliable sources conflict, so we can't just go with a single document that allegedly states something that even the organization the is providing it doesn't interpret it as saying. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr.X, Go to the CREW link that is cited on the Bondi page. It is a press release about a letter of complaint CREW filed with the IRS; at the bottom are links to 3 PDFs. The first PDF is the CREW letter I am referring to - it systematically goes through the sources for the Trump Foundation, the Bondi PAC, the donation in question, etc. On the second page of that letter, it describes the set up of Bondi PAC, referencing Bondi's "Statement of Solicitation" where she declared that she had "established" the new PAC. The second PDF at the bottom of the CREW press release has a copy of that "Statement of Solicitation" (as "Exhibit E"). The form itself states who must submit a Statement of Solicitation and under what circumstances (i.e. those officials who establish, maintain or control a PAC). Bondi signed the form and declared that she established the PAC.

Niteshift, the PAC is indeed "associated" with Bondi. It's also "tied to" her, and "linked to" her, and "supports" her, and is "controlled" by her, and "maintained" by her, and as she herself averred, "established" by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.221 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Aside from the document that Mr. X correctly points out violates BLPPRIMARY, do you have any other reliable source that states she established the PAC? Something that doesn't require your interpretation. The article now, correctly states the PAC supported her reelection. That part is not in dispute. The onus is on you to show convincing third party sources that say she established it. So far, you haven't. You've provided a single document that even the posting source doesn't read the way you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What parts of what I just wrote are hard to understand? The CREW letter to the IRS is a secondary source, and a trustworthy one. It states that Bondi established the PAC. Also, as I clearly wrote, use of the document that Bondi filed when creating the PAC does not require "my" interpretation and does not violate ALPHABETSOUP. Any person with basic reading comprehension is able to understand what Bondi is declaring in it, and therefore the onus is on you to provide a source other than yourself who interprets her statement that she "established" the PAC to mean instead that she has had a "longstanding relationship with" the brand new PAC. 72.86.142.221 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, the CREW letter says "associated with". It is the attached document, the one that BLPPRIMARY excludes, that says "established" and you are interpreting it as meaning she founded the PAC. CREW did not interpret is as founding the PAC. If they had, they'd have said that instead of saying "associated" with. The question being answered on the form is asking what the relationship is. The relationship is an established one, being maintained. You're the only one reading it as Bondi founding the PAC. That's why we need reliable third party sources to say it, not your OR.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. X, why did you remove the reference to Bondi establishing the PAC? I gave you the info you needed to ascertain that Bondi herself stated she established it, and a secondary source confirming that interpretation. Also, why the other deletion in which you assert that the sources don't say Bondi has allowed fundraising to interfere in her official duties? The sources most definitely talk about that. See the linked Tampa Bay Times article from 2013, which begins: "For the second time in as many months, campaign contributions fueling the re-election efforts of Attorney General Pam Bondi are raising questions about the overlap between politics and how Florida's top law enforcement officer performs her duties. Bondi apologized last month after she persuaded Gov. Rick Scott to delay an execution so she could host a fundraiser at her South Tampa home that ended up raising $140,000. Now comes criticism of a $25,000 contribution made by one of Donald Trump's foundations to a political committee associated with Bondi." 72.86.142.221 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have already explained, the press release says nothing about Bondi establishing the PAC and we do not allow original research. If you have a reliable secondary source—preferably an WP:INDEPENDENT source—that that says she established the PAC, post the link here and I will be happy to look at it.- MrX 10:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• And what was removed was your editorializing comment of "especially". The source doesn't say that, it's all you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the CREW letter that says (on page 2) she established the PAC: crew.3cdn.net/3429baca6f958ccc07_nvm6yx60v.pdf You give the impression that you don't even read what I write; I told you that you could click through to the letter in question from the press release. I also told you that your justification for removing material from the first sentence is false, because the original text is sourced to a linked article; no response at all from you.

Niteshift, you give the impression you don't understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. A secondary source, like the CREW letter to the IRS, draws its information based upon primary sources such as Bondi's Statement of Solicitation. Yes, CREW's IRS letter does indeed say Bondi established the PAC, and yes it counts as a secondary source. No, none of your interpretations - either of the Statement of Solicitation or of CREW's IRS letter - are tenable in the slightest degree...for the reasons I already spelled out to you, reasons you never acknowledged. (For starters, the fact that Bondi could not claim an "established relationship" with a brand new PAC.) You just keep repeating your preposterously strained reinterpretation of Bondi's Statement of Solicitation, as if all your fussing meant there were legitimate dispute over its interpretation. 72.86.133.83 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• First, the letter you are linking to is CREW's complaint, which really goes back to BLP Primary. Crew did bury the "establish" thing on page 2, which conflicts with what the opening paragraph on page 1. The document attached to their complaint is a primary document. And I do understand the difference. The CREW complaint, however, can also be seen as a primary document. It is a complaint being filed with a government agency, no different than any other lawsuit or criminal complaint. It will inherently have a bias because the author has drawn enough of a conclusion to file it. Even if we call it a secondary source (which I believe it would be if it were being used as a formal complaint to the IRS), it is secondary....not the third party that is preferred. Many discussion at the RSN have shown that many people feel they are biased. Multiple, multiple reliable third party sources use phrasing like "associated with", "supporting" etc. Some third part sources call it her PAC. But only one is calling it her personal organization, a source that is involved in filing a complaint. Why should we ignore the multitude of third party sources that don't say she established it and go with a single secondary source that is relying on primary documents? Why does CREW suddenly outweigh all the others? That simply doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your "argument" here assumes that so-called negative evidence is easy to interpret and such interpretations easily over-rule positive evidence that explicitly contradicts those interpretations. To call that approach to evidence naive or misinformed would be charitable. Your consistently tendentious arguments show that you know exactly how absurd your arguments are. As for your argument that CREW's letter is not a secondary source...hoo boy. 72.86.133.83 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A letter would be a primary source. 3cdn.net is not a publication. You're free to get input from WP:RSN is you believe otherwise.- MrX 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well gee, I guess I'm not the only one who seems to think that the CREW letter isn't a secondary source. Imagine that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

My changes to the 2016 Orlando Massacre were NOT incorrect.

I really didn't appreciate it when you changed the fact that you changed my addition not once, but twice. The media has been trying hard to "straight wash" this, I don't appreciate it being done on free and open source media. The targets of this attack were not just the patrons of Pulse nightclub, the target was clear and simple, it was an attack on the LGBTQ+ Community.

My edit made clear that the target of the attack was the LGBTQ+ Community, which is fair, since this attack happened on Pride month in an LGBTQ+ venue.

This edit is not incorrect, and you have now changed it TWICE.

I will be changing it back now, so that the target is clear. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.125.112 (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether you think it's correct or not, you can't put it on Wikipedia without a reliable source. Logic of course tells us that a person cannot attack an entire community, and "LGBTQ+ community" is an abstract concept anyway. Please read up on our policies before making more edits.- MrX 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EW at Orlando

Re: [10]

I previously reverted him per BRD and asked him to seek consensus. I'm in no state of mind to handle this, perhaps you can. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I almost warned him this morning, but I try to cut regular users some latitude. He's being obstinate so I will see if I can intervene.- MrX 17:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Redzemp

Hey! As someone who also quit on trying to negotiate with that guy at the Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting page, do you think this kind of behavior he's displaying warrants a discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread? Parsley Man (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it would just be a drama magnet. I think it's best to disengage and hope that he reflects on what several editors have wrote.- MrX 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt he's going to do some serious reflection. Not sure if you're aware of this, but he has a history of behavior like this. Parsley Man (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not aware that there was a history. If you think it's best to take it to ANI, I won't try to talk you out of it. After all the bad news this week, I just have no appetite for the internet idiots, trolls, and self-appointed devils advocates that flock to ANI whenever they smell dramahmeat.- MrX 22:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, me neither. Which is why I asked you. Parsley Man (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia's definition of vandalism

Thanks for your feedback. I have been remiss in not trying to more closely align our WP:PRESERVE and WP:VAND policies. In my mind's eye, violating the first one is equivalent to violating the second one; they should go hand in hand. I apologize for shorthanding my edit comments as to such violations amounting to "vandalism" either way in the meantime.

They say hard cases make bad law, but seeing what the average Wikipedian is ignorant about on an article that is edited 100 times an hour does, I think, help us make our policies better in the long term. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is no WP:PRESERVE policy. WP:PRESERVE is a shortcut to a section in the editing policy suggesting that it is sometimes better to improve content rather than remove it. Our policies don't exist in isolation. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWARRING, and WP:NPOV also apply. Since you seem to be very interested in adding the Donald Trump's comments about the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting‎ to the article, my advice would be to obtain clear consensus on the talk page before adding it to the article again.- MrX 11:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dump/Never movement article

Many times the most interesting tidbits can be found on an articles talk page. The best information surfaces byway of open discussions. Maybe the "stuff" won't make it to the article main page, but an editor can at least walk away with a sense of having a voice. Thanks for always creating stimulating and wide-ranging discussions that provide direction without limiting reliable, verifiable input. Your stewardship and positive demeanor is always noticeable. Buster Seven Talk 12:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Buster7. I agree, and appreciate your kind words.- MrX 12:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop Trump: the category

I responded on my talk page. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Diary of a Kid (series)

It was a nice thought, but it would really have been kinder to let this be deleted rather than move it to Draft. The guy has yesterday "confirmed" an idea for a book series which he hopes to publish next year - there is zero chance of this becoming an article. I have explained WP:BK and WP:NAY to him in the hope of saving him from wasting too much time on it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I only realized that it had been G11ed after I moved it to draft space.- MrX 19:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for reaching out, However i would like clarify here that the link building link that i edited purely related terminology used in accordance with the page. please revert it back.

cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinoth kali (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which of my 66,581 edits you're referring to.- MrX 11:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You only left him one message - he added a quite non-utile link on Link building [11] Collect (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!- MrX 14:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring the edit that you performed on this page link building, It is gud know that you does 66,581 edit.. Bravo to that! Thanks for the Knowledge transfer too!1 Mr

(Vinoth kali (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC))