User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2019

inquiry

Hi MrX, is there any way I can contact you directly with a press inquiry? Aarontaksingmak (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarontaksingmak (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aarontaksingmak: Sure, you can send me an email by clicking here. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Perfect I've emailed. Thank you!

@Aarontaksingmak: I'm afraid I will not be able to help you with an interview. You may recall that I gave you an interview in August 2015 when you worked for another publication. Not only did you (or your editor?) not run the story, but you didn't even follow up with an acknowledgment that you had received my email responding to your interview questions. Best to you. - MrX 🖋 20:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 

Evidence

The Close challenge thread should be added as evidence. [1] You were not only blown off but told it felt like harassment, told that an arbcomm case was a waste of time and threatened with a block. (Diffs available) I'm likely short of words and restricted or I'd put it in myself after I noticed you mentioned it. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I do plan to add that later today or tomorrow, if possible. I'm juggling some real life tasks at the moment.- MrX 🖋 16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Real life is more important. Thanks for your good work. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica and 2016 election

Hello, in order to avoid an edit war, let's go back to the original source: [url]https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/data-and-dirty-tricks-channel-4-s-expose-on-cambridge-analytica-20180320-p4z56t.html - if you look at the context of the British/Israeli companies comment here there is no specific claim that these companies were used specifically to influence the *2016 election* (though that may well have been the case) even though it was misreported as such in that TOI article. More evidence is necessary here. 67.82.62.118 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK 67.82.62.118, I can't take a deep dive into this at the moment but I will look at it later and comment on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump

Your recent large section trims on this article seem well placed. In looking at the Foreign Policy section there, it appears to be completely redundant to the special topics article for Foreign Policy in the Trump Administration. This redundancy is all the way down to the individual countries which are covered which are fully redundant to the main article, and worse, they are selectively singled out and not remotely updated as well as the main article for Foreign Policy. This entire section of Foreign Policy in the Presidency article should be trimmed as you have already done elsewhere in the other section of this same article, with all redundant portions removed with the link left for the main article. More trims seem warranted since you have already started on this. CodexJustin (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments CodexJustin. I did have a look at the material under foreign policy, but I was struggling with what to trim. There's still a lot more that needs to be done, to be sure. I trimmed about 50,000 bytes, but the readable prose size did not go down at all! Feel free to jump in to help with the trimming if you see something overly detailed or already covered in another article.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I'm actually for trimming more of the section in its larger part and keeping the main article link, since only the main article seems to be receiving any of the updates for all the countries listed. Since editors seem happy with the trims you have already just done recently, it seems you can continue to trim all of the countries covered in the Foreign policy section since they are fully redundant in comparison to the main article for Foreign policy. I'm fully supportive of your trims and you can keep making them. The article currently at half-a-million bytes is just too long. CodexJustin (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well Gerda Arendt.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What did I do

MrX, I know we have disagreed a number of times on this topic but I'm curious about this part of an edit summary [[2]], "We're not here to repeat the excuses of the NRA's lawyers". I'm not sure what part of my change would have looked like an excuse or indicated a NPOV issue. I do agree that the Newsweek article said "letter to Congress" but the NPR article says the letter was to a senator and the actual letter, copied by NPR, supports that. However, I could be wrong because it was clearly sent to the senator in an official capacity. Also, I hope the comment about watching my citations was in error. As I said on the talk page, the two sources, NW and NPR were published on the same day. I didn't see replacing one with the other as an issue given the NPR article was more detailed and provided a copy of the original letter in the article. However, I guess I should have left the original one even though it was redundant. Anyway, I'm posting here because the comments were came across as a personal rebuke in a context where I felt I was being very even handed. I hope this was just one of those cases where we miss something in reading since I'm not seeing the issues you suggested. Take care! Springee (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: My edit summary was not an indictment of your intention. It was merely a comment about how the content read. I was mistaken about when the Newsweek article was published, so I apologize for that. We can discuss the material further on the talk page.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MrX! Springee (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX, on my talk page, there is a notification of sanctions due to past disruptions on post-1932 politics of the United States. While there are articles on that topic, I did not edit or read any of tem. What are these sanctions there for then if I have shown no interest whatsoever in that topic?Primal Groudon (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg image

I'm not stuck on this one, we have a dozen in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pete_Buttigieg - just pick one that's not likely copyrighted. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough and thank you - MrX 🖋 16:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual DS alert refresh - American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fresh now. Like a summer rain, but in the winter... - MrX 🖋 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Music taste of Trump

Hello! I want to ask your help. I can not place interesting and encyclopedic information into article about Donald Trump (I see only "view source"). Music taste of the US President. You can easy do it instead me. Trump likes The Beatles and Elton John. You can create new section, if is need. Or place in some existing section.

Source (reference): https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6882563/donald-trump-michael-jackson-gop-town-hall

Ok? Thank you! - 2.94.81.158 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC).

@2.94.81.158: You can make an edit request on the "view source" page. You will first have to write the exact text that you would like to be added to the article (and explain where to put it), along with the source that you have already identified. You can make the edit request here.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Why I must make request, if you can place the info during few seconds. And I ask your help. Not advice. Be good man, please. 2.94.81.158 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Because that's not how Wikipedia works, and the article is not lacking for having an absence of trivia about Trump's musical tastes. If it's important to you, you will need to put forth the effort to have it included.- MrX 🖋

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WaPo cite

Your Trump WaPo cite now redirects to a different article, with different byline and different title. If you would reverify, I can change the cite. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have no idea why they changed it, but I don't think it matters (but the cite should be updated with the correct title and authors). The wording can probably also be updated now that Cohen has read his statement in front of the committee and the popcorn is a popping.- MrX 🖋 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take that as your assurance that the new one supports the content, and I'll change the cite. I'll leave any wording change to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello MrX/Archive,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

I don't understand this edit. From the phrasing, it sounds like you are suggesting that I haven't read WP:NOT, although that doesn't make sense in context. (You are against using tweets as sources for endorsements, but I didn't put any tweet-sourced endorsements into the list.) I would appreciate it if you would re-phrase your comment to clarify your point; if you mean that those editors who have added tweet-sourced endorsements should read WP:NOT, please say so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: that was definitely not directed at you. I was only commenting on the the fact that other editors have relied on tweets for endorsements. I will clarify my comment on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 22:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please cancel your reverting Shankarrao_Kale

Please cancel your reverting at Shankarrao_Kale. This subject is notable enough and requires to complete the exclusive set of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16556694 aka Member_of_parliament,_Lok_Sabha . Thank you! ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I already did, one minute after I reverted your edit and 13 minutes before you posted this. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! For a short while, I went back to that chronic sick mode of being depressed on "reckless reverts", very often encountered by Wikipedians of the 'lesser kind'. But this last action by you totally made my day! :-)

Hello MrX, Viswaprabha has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 18:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the edit on the Russia Interference page

That was not original research. They were quotations from the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalPhilosopher(91939) (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You can't pick out the parts of a primary document that you think summarize its contents. That is original research. We also don't usually copy large tracts of text into an article, and we don't refer readers with external links in the body of articles. Also, your formatting didn't conform to basic Wikipedia standards, which is a problem for an article that will be read by thousands of readers. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You have just dumped a template on my talk page...why? Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained on your talk page. Look at your contributions.- MrX 🖋 00:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

2017 albums RfC

Please review your close at Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment. I don't believe that it reflects accurately the content of that discussion, and it does not seem to take into account (and certainly does not mention) the canvassing for which there was clear evidence. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing The canvassing was inappropriate, but I did not see evidence that it actually affected the !votes in any meaningful way. Would you like me to re-open the discussion and let someone else close it?- MrX 🖋 01:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite your recent edit, it's still hatted as closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is indeed closed. Now it awaits someone to evaluate consensus. I have posted a request at WP:ANRFC. - MrX 🖋 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)