User talk:MrX/Archive/July-September 2012

Speedy deletion nomination of James Nolan, Jr.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Nolan, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --IShadowed 23:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical tag on Icarus complex

I agree with you. I wrote the article quickly and thought I'd get it taken a care of soon after. I plan to expand and explain terms/interpretation. Your recent placement of a technical tag on it reminded me. Thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure it's a difficult subject to cover without using technical terminology. Good luck with it. MrX 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work!!

		The Citation Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for your excellent editing. Keeping articles adequately referenced can be quite tiresome, so I admire your patience and dedication. Great work, MrX. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly, George Custer's Sabre. It's my pleasure to contribute wherever I can. My Best, MrX 21:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aces High @ 23 Wall Street

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aces High @ 23 Wall Street, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: subject is clear - a non-notable book. Let the PROD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for the notification. MrX 22:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

G of J Template

Thank you. Your opinion is a useful adjunct to the discussion. I am hoping we may achieve consensus that a bot might be proposed to add to the template and add the template to pages. Thank you for taking the time to think about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Fiddle Faddle. I'm glad my little bit of opinion was helpful. Be well, MrX 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fighuhldz/sandbox review of Elemental Technologies article

Hello, would you mind reviewing the Elemental Technologies page again? I have a draft here in my sandbox: Fighuhldz/sandbox I'm sorry, but I can't seem to link you to it. I've tried to move it to a more neutral tone and would appreciate your feedback. Thank you for your help! Fighuhldz (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to take a look at the article in your sandbox Fighuhldz. Overall, the article seems to be well written with good use of inline citations. If the blog articles from The Oregonian appeared in print, I would change those citation sources to newspaper, which would appear to be more authoritative.

The product section might be a little lengthy. I recommend removing the WP:ELs to avoid any appearance of spamming. Perhaps you could add a section about any awards, such as "Elemental Technologies Wins OnMedia 100 Award" - Business Wire - January 22, 2009.

There should probably be a section on competitors. You're fortunate to have a lot of press coverage for Elemental Technologies, so you need to make sure that you include a balanced sampling of per WP:DUE.

Finally, You should also check the links in your references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Other than that it looks good and I think it's fit for moving into the article. You may also want to get feedback from other, more experienced editors. My best, MrX 01:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. I've removed dead links, changed a blog link, and added sections for Competitors and Awards. Would you mind looking again? Do you have an editor that you would recommend for a second opinion? Thanks for a welcoming first writing experience on Wikipedia!Fighuhldz (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Also, I've posted the updated article at Elemental Technologies.Fighuhldz (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. Perhaps it would be better if the Awards and Competitors sections were narrative, rater than lists, but that's a fairly fine point. I don't know of any specific editors who could review your article and provide you feedback. In the past there was board that you could post to, to receive feedback, but apparently it is no longer available. You may want to find an active editor in a similar category (such as Category:Software companies based in Oregon, and post such a request to one of their talk page. Best wishes, MrX 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy Deletion of my Article

Why do want call this article an attack page and delete it when there are plenty of other similar "attack pages" on Wikipedia?

For the sake of fairness, the Jewish control of Hollywood article should be deleted first and only then should my article be deleted.

See the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_control_of_Finance

Elsvan (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Elsvan, I may have erred in nominating this article for speedy deletion. In my haste, I did not see the word canard in the lede. I would have thought that such an article would be titled in a way that made it clear that the topic is a canard (e.g. Jewish control of Finance (canard), as opposed to an encyclopedia article about Jewish control of Finance. I was actually writing this on the article's talk page, when the article was deleted.

I apologize if this was mistake, but in light of the article being deleted by an admin, I am even less clear on Wikipedia consensus regarding such articles. MrX 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you should appeal to the Administrator who deleted the article to undelete/reinstate it. In any case, there should be deletion review. Elsvan (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another editor already has done so here User talk:Alexf#Deletion question. I want to educate myself on Wikipedia policy/consensus about these types of articles, before I weight in any further on this issue. MrX 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Elsvan is a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prachursharma/Archive for some backstory. LadyofShalott 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Point #1

Please see the article for the album Point No. 1. It states that the name of the album is actually Point #1 "The correct title of this article is Point #1. The substitution or omission of the # sign is because of technical restrictions". I reverted your changes to the Chevelle article for that reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Sorry for the sloppy editing. MrX 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But thanks for all your other "# → No" efforts. Much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. — MrX 00:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What's you view on "Number → No." or " "No. → Number"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Overall, I'm for consistency throughout an article, and as much as possible, throughout WP. I'm not a fan of 'No.' since the english word 'number' does not have an 'o' in it. That said, I defer to WP:MOS for guidance, albeit incomplete. Bottom line: I would prefer that 'number' be spelled out in the main text of articles, and abbreviated in lists, but since I'm using AWB for the changes, I'm just aiming for incremental and consistent improvement at this point. MrX 15:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. That all sounds perfectly fair to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hello

I have been given a final warning for removing incorrect and biased data on the page 'Homeopathy'.. Please can you tell me why you keep reverting my deletion when the original text is biased and does not abide by wikipedias five pillars:

"We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."

The whole article does not present one positive trial on homeopathy-I can provide many.

It is highly biased against the profession saying that the medical profession widely views it as Quackery. Why then is it a service provided by the NHS? Do you think it is right to call a service provided by the NHS Quackery? As a worker for the NHS I really think it's disgusting to allow this on a site that I thought was reputable. There is no evidence that this is the case. The author cites one journal article, this is not enough to back up the sentence I deleted. Please explain.

Thanks Jane JB667 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (moved from sub page by MrX 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

Gladly, but first a couple of housekeeping items. If you want to leave message on a users talk page, all you have to do is go to that page and select the New Section tab at the top and follow the instructions. I'm not sure how, but you created a sub page under my talk page, so I moved your comments here. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tilde (~) characters in a row.

I understand your frustration and you are correct about each article needing to have a neutral point of view. Certainly, you are welcome to make bold, but sensible edits to the article. That said, any content you add should be attributable to reliable, third-party sources. Also, it should not be original research. Thus, if you were to post a clinical study, that would be a first- or possibly a second-party source. If you post "proof", it could also be considered original research.

I'm not saying that the information that you removed should not be removed, especially if does not represent a broader view. However, the presumption is that it does if it has one or more reliable sources and is the result of consensus building withing the Wikipedia community.

Please take time to read these help articles for a much more comprehensive explanation than I am capable of providing:

• Original research
• Reliable sources
• Reliable sources -Medicine
• Concensus
• Conflict of interest

Please keep in mind that a new editor, boldly jumping into a very controversial article, is likely to be heavily scrutinized. I earnestly recommend (as I did on your talk page), that you join the discussion on the article's talk page here Talk:Homeopathy. This is how you can gain support for your edits by building consensus with other editors. MrX 23:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite advice. Unfortunately I have looked at the discussion page, it is not a discussion page at all, it is a group of anti homeopathy people who know nothing about homeopathy. Same with other complimentary medicine pages on Wiki. These volunteers have the final say. There is not one link to the many positive trials of homeopathy. I'm afraid your well intentioned efforts on the site are not serving the wider community at all. I simply can't be bothered with 'pack of dogs' mentality-I have a life which doesn't allow me the time to argue with people who are clearly biased and clearly aren't going to take a balanced view on board. Look at the discussion page if you think I'm exaggerating. I'm not.

www.naturalnews.com/029939_Wikipedia_bias.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB667 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello! What's wrong with BTDigg article?

Renovator qq (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Renovator qq. As I stated in the deletion nomination, the "Article lacks independent (emphasis added), reliable sources and does not establish notability. It is also written in a promotional/advertising tone." You may want to explore WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI to get an idea of why I think the article merits deletion. If this is a notable subject, you should be able to find newspaper, magazine or journal articles which cover it. As it is, it seems to be written from an original research perspective, perhaps by someone closely allied with the website. MrX 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Renovator qq (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) I'm a fan of this project and I inserted lots of valid links. What fact are you calling into question?

I'm not calling any fact into question. "More valid links" does not help establish notability. Did you read the help articles that I referred you to, above? I really think they would answer your questions. You need to cite reliable, independent, third party sources (like new articles, not other web sites associated with the subject). I hope that helps. MrX 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Renovator qq (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I did. I cited torrentfreak.com. It's the independent, third-party, reliable source. But the information about releases and history of the project name I found on the BTDigg's site. And it's logical to refer on the original source in the such cases.

In my opinion, torrentfreak.com, a blog from someone named Ernesto, does not establish that that BTDigg is notable enough to have it's own encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be merged with the BitTorrent article.

Keep in mind that other editors may weigh in as to whether or not this article should be deleted, including you. You can post your comment(s) here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTDigg, but read this first: WP:GD.

I will continue to watch the page, and if you add reliable sources, I will modify my deletion nomination. Beyond that, I don't think there is much more I can do. [[[user:MrX|MrX]] 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

SimoJoen (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I saw your contribution, and sorry guy, you're not qualified to remove/delete such kind of articles and even edit them. You're not adequate saying that there are not reliable resources there. You should be objective, the article is not complete but well-writen.

Having problems learning how to edit

Hi there, I know you're an expert so I'd love your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriabeeching (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Victoriabeeching. I hardly qualify as an expert, but I would be happy to try to help you. What questions do you have, or what are you having difficulties with. MrX 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

disruptive editing

why you say that my editing is disruptive? I explained my changes on talk pages. Nemambrata (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right path, but the talk pages are for building consensus with other editors. Explaining your edits is a first step, but how about giving others a chance to give their views? Also, completely removing citations, especially without providing an edit summary, is considered disruptive. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR. — MrX 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht SPI

Your comments are invited here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbreht. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for my first page

Thanks for providing me with the useful links for the beginners. Those proved to be quite helpful during learning how-to-edit. As you know, I am a new editor at Wikipedia. To start with my wiki-editing, I have created an article on Kinomap. If possible, could you please review it under "peer review" scheme. Hoping to find your feedback soon so that I may start its french version. Sorry to trouble you and thanks in advance for your time.

PV 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranaw.vatsal (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the article is comprehensive, but very promotion in extent and tone. I recommend really studying WP:RS and WP:PROMOTION to gain a better understanding. As the article stands now, the references are largely from the Kinomap web site, partner's web sites, personal blogs, Youtube videos and download repositories. As such, there are not objective. They also do not establish the notability of the subject, because they are not independent of the subject, nor are they notable themselves.

The question that needs to be answered is: What have other, independent, reliable third parties said about this software that makes it notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article? I hope that helps. MrX 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will try to correct the tone and objectiveness of the article. Also, I will remove all the parts which haven't got any notable 3rd party citation. Actually, the concept of Geolocation Videos and Kinomap are relatively new and I couldn't find suitable page to add them due to which I had to start a new page and hence the articles have got lesser valid references based on Wiki Standards. It will be time-taking to correct the citations and the article itself but once done, I will inform you. Thanks again for your time and efforts. PV 07:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranaw.vatsal (talk • contribs)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan, Churn and change

Yes, he's edit-warring, but I'm trying to get him to come to the talk page instead of fighting. Could please you give him a chance to do this before you report him? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I wasn't planning on reporting him; I just wanted to raise his awareness to a potential issue, since he is a relatively new editor. - MrX 04:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for assuming you'd report him. In my defense, I've been dealing with some editors who are very quick to report, but you're not them so it wasn't right for me to hold you to those expectations.

In any case, it looks like he's actually on the talk page, which is the progress we were hoping for. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jacques Goulet Timeline.png

A tag has been placed on File:Jacques Goulet Timeline.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MrX 19:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht's question about homeopathy

Dear MrX, do you have information about the research on the topic homeopathy. First in his study with spectral analysis there is not effect after Avogadro's number. And second is very interesting Studies of the properties of homeopathic solutions have one peculiarity. In the homeopathic solution the effect is influenced not only by the diluted substance and the potentiation, but also by a third feature that researchers do not report. The solution itself is potentiated in an electromagnetic device and electromagnetic fields indicate to the device an influence on the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. This means that this method of preparation of homeopathic solutions can not serve for the making of fundamental conclusions about informational properties of water. The source and the publications: http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/homeopathy.html Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht , you put your above comment into the middle of another conversation on my talk page. In the future, please create a new section at the bottom of the talk page.

I am not currently editing articles on homeopathy and really have no interest in doing so. As far as I know, the claims made by devotees of homeopathy have been largely repudiated by the scientific community. The Homeopathy article covers the subject quite well. - MrX 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

If you ever want an article, let me know and I can e-mail to you. ColaXtra (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ColaXtra, I really appreciate it! - MrX 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		Civility Award
		Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your civility and willingness to listen to reason. Today you showed us all how it's supposed to work. Belchfire-TALK 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much BelchFire. I'm really honored to receive this recognition; it means a lot to me.

Cheers — MrX 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RfD protocol

Directions for closing redirect discussions are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions, if you are so inclined. Despite the name of that page, you do not need to be an administrator in this instance: anyone can close it since it's been withdrawn and no other arguments for deletion have been made (per WP:SK #1), and there's no rush (it's not as if the redirect gets any traffic to speak of). I won't be doing so myself, because I am already involved, and also because I don't want to come off as a bully—just because I make big paragraphs doesn't mean I should get my way when I'm the only one asserting a particular position. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate your willingness to consider the merits of my argument. Thank you. BigNate37_(T) 01:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice BigNate37. I've closed the RfD (hopefully correctly). I appreciate that you helped me see the potential usefulness of the redirect that I had not considered. Best, — MrX 01:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple things to point out: usually whoever closes the discussion will put the result in bold (see this discussion, e.g.). Also, when a redirect is kept normally the {{oldrfd}} tag goes on the talk page with appropriate parameters. In this case the nomination was withdrawn, so there was no real consensus formation and I am not sure if using {{oldrfd}} is still necessary. I guess it depends on whether the short discussion we had is relevant in a hypothetical future nomination of the same redirect. I erred on the side of caution and placed it there, hopefully by classifying it as withdrawn rather than keep it will not incorrectly imply that a consensus to keep was formed. RfD is fairly casual and low-stress compared to AfD, and I've seen quite a bit of variation in closures even in the last few weeks. BigNate37_(T) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

CfA

Since you seem to know where in the sources this information explicitly stating "anti-gay" is mentioned, could you put one inline citation immediately AFTER "anti-gay"? I have no doubt it exists as you say it does. But I'm getting a bit peeved with the edit warring on this sentance and maybe a direct citation or even a quote will put this to bed. On 2nd thought it probably won't, but it's worth a try. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. — MrX 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this will be a case of no good deed goes unpunished, but you have my thanks if that's any consolation.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, little green rosetta. I'm glad to help. — MrX 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — MrX 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it...

Be ready in a few mins for ya! ColaXtra (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome,thanks. — MrX 19:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK! You got an anonymous, spam e-mail address that you use to which I can send it? Send me a quick e-mail via here if you prefer not to post anything here. ColaXtra (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's here: http://www.adrive.com/public/fEYQtq/1742214.pdf. ColaXtra (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again ColaXtra, I really appreciate it. — MrX 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! As many as often as you please! Only takes about thirty seconds out of my life. Laters... ColaXtra (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for hanging in there at Kirlian photography. GaramondLethe 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GaramondLethe. I'm hoping that this article can become a featured article some day. — MrX 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your assistance at Talk:Homophobia, you deserve this and have saved us all a lot of time spent in pointless arguments! ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jenova! I will enjoy it with a frosty glass of milk. Hopefully others who want to dredge up that tired argument will take a hint and move on to the undersides of other bridges. — MrX 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not likely to happen. There's 7 billion people out there and every few seconds someone will be called a homophobe. A lot of them won't care but some will look it up here. There's no way around that unless everyone decides to get along overnight...Enjoy the brownie and enjoy the rest of today! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC & FBI

I thought this might be of interest to you. I don't have access to the sources in question, but you might. [1]   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks little green rosetta. I do have access through HighBeam. I'll see if I can anything to the discussion. – MrX 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for Assistance

I am dilazak1 managing 'Dilazak' page. Thanx for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.34.232 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome Dilazak1. I'm glad I could help. – MrX 12:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on 'Dilazak' Page

Hi, I am Dilazak1 managing 'Dilazak' page. Just wanted to say 'Thanx' for improving the page. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome Dilazak1. Enjoy your day! – MrX 18:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: James M Plasse

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of James M Plasse, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Electric Catfish 00:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

However, I re-tagged it for speedy deletion as an A7. Electric Catfish 00:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks – MrX 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTCANVASS

Your logic and prose are impeccable. Would you please take a look at the RfCs at articles that have similar themes to articles you have commented upon? They are California Proposition 8 and Illinois Family Institute? I think the partisans on both sides could use a dose of your analysis. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're very kind with your praise. Sure, I'll take a look at those articles and see if I can offer any help. Cheers, – MrX 00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

LGR, this is a blatant example of canvassing. Mr. X, if you go to these RFC's, I will point to this entry to invalidate your vote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Immunized.[2][3] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this was an example of canvassing, even by the strictest definition, but you're entitled to your viewpoint. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to threaten to invalidate my potential participation in an RfC. In fact, when I read little green rosetta's post, I completely glossed over the RfC portion, and was only interested in possibly editing the articles. Frankly, the hair pulling and absence of reasonable discourse on those article's talk pages has dissuaded me. I didn't come to Wikipedia to wage ideological wars. – MrX 14:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because you were canvassed into participating, your immediate contributions are tainted. In particular, your !VOTE on an RfC should not be counted in addition to his, due to meat puppetry.

You are, of course, entirely welcome to participate in editing these articles, and after a bit of time passes, how you got there will no longer be held against you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bizarre accusation, but also extremely uncivil. Accusing someone of meatpuppetry is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. I suspect that StillStanding doesn't quite understand what the concept means, but that is no excuse. I strongly urge you to retract your statement, Still Standing. WP:MEAT says "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy." StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It remains the case that MrX was canvassed to participate in a pair of RfC's. If he had participated, that would indeed have made him a meat puppet. This is true by definition: according to WP:Meat puppet, "A 'meat puppet' is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus." I'm sorry if this fact offends you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:MEAT, which I quoted from. Wikipedia:Meat puppetry, which you quote, is a failed proposal. StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless Mr. x. is offended, I suggest everyone just drop this. There was no canvassing going on (despite claims to the counter). Still is simply being a troll. Arguing with him is like giving a fire oxygen.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering I have no idea what Mr. X's views are, even from his work on other articles (nor would I suggest that any could discern them) I think he is the epitome of how to be an editor for a controversial topic. What I do know is that his suggestions are rational and neutral.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconded! - he does good work ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no problem with MrX. Admittedly, I know little about him, but the edits I've seen are reasonable. My concern is about vote-stacking by LGR. LGR has been quite hostile as of late, both here and elsewhere, which is a civility issue on top of the vote-stacking. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine but be careful with accusations. You've had trouble with a certain Wikiproject from what i've seen and the last thing you want to do is hand them easy diffs they can use to block you. Calm it down a bit and be less hasty to accuse. Thanks and good luck in future StillStanding! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@SS If you think I've been uncivil, or canvassed, then take it to a noticeboard. With all due respect, you are trolling again.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how your remark can be relevant or productive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair calling someone a meatpuppet is also uncivil. Maybe now is a good time to stop fanning the fire flames and move on? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to move along, but in my defense, I didn't call him a meat puppet. Rather, I said that if he went along with the vote-stacking, he would then be a meat puppet. This predicate is false, so the conclusion does not follow. That is all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you even read the policies you constantly misinterpret? How many times must you embarrass yourself? Stop lecturing experienced editors.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just going to note that you're being uncivil and quite likely guilty of a personal attack. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sascha123

Hi there; you recently welcomed this editor (which is fine) and your templated welcome included the standard comment about edits. His only edit is in German, which is, as you know, ultimately inadmissable. Did you consider notifying him of en-wikipedia policy regarding foreign language edits?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to notify the editor of the policy regarding foreign language edits, but I did not see the correct template in Twinkle. I probably should have just written a manual notice or looked up the appropriate template in help. – MrX 21:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just found it in Twinkle. – MrX 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Uw-hasty

Respectfully, of course. Especially for CSD/A3s. Have a good one. NTox · talk 01:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I know. Thanks! – MrX 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

I've always found bubble tea relaxing. Maybe a virtual cup will serve as an adequate apology for getting you in the middle of an unpleasant situation that does not have anything to do with you. I want to reiterate that I have nothing personally against you and I've found your edits to be reasonable. I should have been much more clear about precisely what aspect of the situation bothered me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks StillStanding, and no worries. I know you didn't intend any ill will toward me. Hopefully everyone involved will take away a lesson to help them with their own personal journey. Be well – MrX 02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sasha Stone

I perfectly sited the information I placed into this page with a reputable website that also has its own wikipedia page: compete.com It is the gold standard in measuring website traffic. I also cited the reference to the page for it. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamawarbucks (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The information the above user refers to is irrelevant at best and, at worst, compromises the neutrality of the article. Of course, one may disagree with the claim that the subject's website is popular, but I would think the more appropriate course of action would be to delete the claim instead of resorting to posting a block of statistics. Googooboo1387 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Mamawarbucks, you did not provide a source citation for the text that you added: "...but dropped out after a few semesters". The existing source for that section of the article (a link to a contact page) makes no mention of this. Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy is very strict with regard to potentially libelous information. The other content that you added, further down, seems as if it may be original research, although that is less of a concern (to me). Cheers – MrX 21:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I am a wikipedai editor with (opinion) a pretty good track record. earlier today someone created a red link in an article that I watch, Kirk-in-the-Hills (or close to that) by creating a John Angel (sculptor) link. I am at work, with out either time or means to get a decent stub going, so just did a quick start. I have plenty on Angel to make a respectable stub, but not now. Maybe later today, perhaps this weekend. Anyway i beg a little patience on your part. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You should use your user sandbox or article creation wizard if you are at work and do not have research material with which to create an appropriate article for publication. Then, when it's sufficiently completed, you can easily move it to into the live article space. This is clearly explained at the top of the article creation window.

In any case, it looks like other editors have contributed to bring the article to Wikipedia standards, so there should be no further concern. Best – MrX 21:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I do have friends. Thanks for your tips, Carptrash (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Go-Gos

Hi there... I am new to this, just getting my toes wet in fact and didn't mean to remove any content. I simply intended to update the article with a single line. Sorry about that and thanks for catching my error. I shall be more careful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misssarta (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Misssarta. I thought it was probably an accident; it happens to all of us. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! – MrX 04:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misssarta (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

BLPs

Relax. The article is awaiting proof reading first, then it'll be sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am relaxed, and thanks for the suggestion, but perhaps you could let me know what you are referring to. Thanks – MrX 18:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Georg Jann..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the template and the warning at the top of the article creation edit box speak for themselves: BLP articles need to be sourced. In the future, you may want to consider first creating the article in your user space. – MrX 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

MrX: An opinion. Dr.B is a legend, one of wikipedia's most prolific and respected editors. I think you need to ponder just a bit about when to quote rules to editors and when not to. Carptrash (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Evidently there are different schools of thought with regard to what is appropriate to publish in the article mainspace. When in doubt, I'll defer to a combination of policies, guidelines and what I observe to be best practices. You and the legendary Dr. B are, of course, free to pursue your own editing practices. Best wishes – MrX 19:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Many harken back to the now famous line in "The Pirates of the Caribbean" something like "they are really more like guidelines than rules." Dr. B, who probably has no idea who I am, and I did not plan this out. Which in its self, I believe, has some meaning. Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Nice photo of Spirit of the American Doughboy Carptrash. Are you from Arkansas? I started an Arkansas crook earlier Rufe Persful, amazed me the Arkansas Federal Penitentiary system of trusting inmates with shotguns!! Don't worry, we might even make a DYK out of it. MrX if you see a German translated BLP needing sourcing and a copyedit again don't worry about it! By all means keep an eye on it if you are concerned it wont be sorted out! Gerda Arendt and I regularly work together on German biographies. Mr X is of course right though in general about unsourced BLPs as a lot of editors might not know of the BLP guidelines. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cheers – MrX 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Hi! Your information was submitted properly. Then surveymonkey just gave you an offer to take one of their surveys. You didn't need to do that, and it has nothing to do with your Credo account. Your account information will be emailed to you by Credo in the next two weeks. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! — MrX 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I still haven't received any account information. Could you please look into this? Many thanks – MrX 16:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Credo was supposed to send out the information yesterday. If you don't hear by tomorrow, please ping me and I'll ask them for an update. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I just wanted to let you know that I still have not received the Credo account information. There's absolutely no hurry, as HighBeam Research has filled the gap very nicely. Also, thanks for all of your effort to make these resources available to Wikipedians. I really thinks it's transformational. My best – MrX 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad that HighBeam is working for you. I'm a bit befuddled as to what happened at Credo. I currently have an inquest pending and will notify everyone once the accounts actually go out. That said, if yours suddenly appears, please let me know. Aso, thanks for your kind words; I'm working on expanding the current offerings as we speak. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC NPOV Tag

From my vantage, part of the POV tag issue is the refusal of some to address some sources that are possibly critical of some SPLC actions. I believe some of those sources can be found in the following section of a different article [4]. Tom feels that all of these sources have been dismissed, even by his own admission not all of them may have been examined. I don't know where it's stated that a lack of comment on a source is an explicit dismissal, but that appears to be Tom's position. Would you please read the linked section, and the sources cited? Pay particular attention to the last graph as those are the most germane to the POV question. Maybe you can communicate with Tom and others where I have failed. Or maybe I'm just wrong with respect to these sources. Either way I would appreciate your opinion.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I lean slightly toward including a brief mention of the criticisms, but I don't feel as strongly about it as you and Tom, who seem to be continuing the debate somewhat fruitlessly. I do think that the sources are adequate for inclusion, but ultimately this will come down to enough editors coming together in consensus, which I doubt will happen on this issue. I would/did recommend compromise, but it doesn't even look like that is possible.

I'm sorry, but I have to decline to become involved with what I consider to be minutiae in the grand scheme of things. I'm more interested in focusing my efforts on expanding and connecting content, not trying to make it absolutely perfect. Best wishes – MrX 17:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I only asked because you started a new section for the POV tag.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I was trying to facilitate a discussion that I hoped would lead to resolution, but I failed to do so. When the discussion became circular and stopped being collegial, that's when I chose to step away. – MrX 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories and templates

I see a whole lot of potential edit wars springing up - can't we talk about it first? St Anselm (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, may I suggest we discuss it on the page where the discussion started: Talk:American Family Association#Navboxes – MrX 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion about this edit here? Ron 1987 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nav boxes

One 'rule' I've heard in the past is that if a article is listed in a nav box then there's no question it can be included but if not a reasonable person should be able to see why one should be there. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that additional insight. Within the LGBT navbox is a group called Prejudice & Discrimination and within that group is a link called Anti-gay Hate Groups, which links to an article listing all of the groups to which I added the LGBT template. The relationship seems pretty clear to me.

I think in that case the navbox could go on the linked article itself but not on the 12-25 sub articles. Insomesia (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I find it a little odd that the hosting article must be listed in the template and it's certainly not my interpretation of the guidelines that I've read. I would love to know if there is actually such a guideline or community consensus; it seems more likely that someone just made up that 'rule' because it was convenient. – MrX 01:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. That's how all rules start I imagine. Insomesia (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAVBOX says Finally every article that transcludes a navbox should also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. This first bit doesn't imply that templates shouldn't be added to articles they don't include, but the "bidirectional" seems to imply this. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the clarity I was looking for. It means that the LGBT and discrimination navboxes cannot be used. It also means that the social conservatism template cannot be used. – MrX 02:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But the social conservatism template does include the American Family Association. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. I fold. – MrX 02:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

FWBC

Howdy, Mr. X! I saw your edits on FWBC and liked what you did, but made a number of text reductions based on what I thought was best (if you've been following along in the history, it's been contentious). I'm stopping my edits for now just in case you or others want to edit/comment... essentially, I'm striving for balance at this point after discussing the SPLC issue at length in the talk page threads. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen. Yes, I saw that were editing that article and really appreciate your contributions; they all look good to me. I'm working on categories now, so no worries about editing the FWBC article. I added the docrtine section so that the article did not seem like a pile on and to ensure a neutral POV. Thanks very much for your help! – MrX 18:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that. I think you should read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Further on this, "LGBT right" is a loaded term whereas "same sex marriage" is not. is currently the only category on Wikipedia which begins with "Organizations that oppose..." StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The world's changing. "We've always done it that way"' is becoming a tired excuse for what appears to be suppression of the mere organization of information that happens to be tainted by teh gay. I will make my case in the CfD and I will respect the community's consensus.

BTW, "LGBT right" is no more loaded than women's rights, animal rights, or equal rights. I guess it's easy to claim that someone's rights are loaded when you're not the one deprived of them. – MrX 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Organizations that oppose LGBT rights

Well, for a start, I believe the (parent) category to be POV, and that is why I've nominated it for deletion. But I gave a counter example of an organization (Bash Back!) that is opposed to SSM, but cannot be said to be opposed to LGBT rights. So it turns out it is not a parent-child relationship after all. StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I should point out, I am proceeding on the example that one counterexample is enough to sink the parent-child relationship. StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that think the parent category is POV, and I can't help but think that removing entries from the category bolsters your position the CfD.

I'm afraid your logic (above) fails. If Bash Back is opposed to SSM, then they are opposed to an LGBT right. The parent category is a container for the child categories, not a reason to limit inclusion. Unless you have a better explanation, I will feel obligated to revert it back. – MrX 22:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But Bash Back! belongs to Category:LGBT rights organizations. It can't belong to Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights as well, surely. Another point is, Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage could quite easily be a parent category of Category:Political parties that oppose same-sex marriage, which could potentially contain hundreds of articles. And it would be a big stretch to say the Australian Labor Party, for example, "opposes LGBT rights". StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can both of you stop with the cats until the CfD is finished? I'm afraid things will get ugly otherwise.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I have started a discussion on the category talk page. I approve of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT adoption, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're supposed to put a bowl of milk out >^..^<

– MrX 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why MrX has tagged another dozen articles with another POV cat. I have to go now - I would love to see those cat remove when I get back to Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that the category is POV, but I look forward to a reasoned argument to convince me otherwise.

Every article that I have categorized fits well within that category, even by the most superficial reading of the articles. – MrX 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and our sources back up inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

I've seen your editing and talk page activity around WP and I would like to say I appreciate your work.

Would you mind adding Ave Maria, Florida, to your watchlist? It gets whitewashed regularly by IP editors.

I'm putting your architectural photography article on my watchlist. I frequently write on architectural subjects. I appreciate using HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey) photos because they are public domain. Have you seen the Jack E. Boucher and Jet Lowe articles?

I'd like to buy you a beer. Or two! Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet! I could really use that beer right now! I will add the Ave Maria article to my watchlist. I haven't seen the the other articles, but I will check them out. Thanks for the tips. Cheers – MrX 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember hearing about Ave Maria. Only in Florida.....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New romantics

Hello Herr X. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page if you want to have a look. 88.104.30.107 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP, while you were posting here, I was posting on the talk page. Good times. – MrX 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

lol....we'll keep it on the article talk page from now on then. 88.104.30.107 (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for your revision. I was about to tell him that what he was writing was original research. Teammm ^TM 01:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No prob. I'm pretty good at spotting the obvious. – MrX 01:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?

You have made an addition to MassResistance - are you claiming that this discussion represents a consensus to include it. Seriously? StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

STA, can you step back for a few mins as well? No need to get worked up over this. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@StAnselm - I believe so. Please see my response on the article talk page. Cheers – MrX 03:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Please take a 30 min break and relax. This coffee has no caffeine. :)   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!! I was just thinking the same thing. – MrX 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

MassResistance

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MassResistance. Thank you. —StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

International Talk Like a Pirate Day is tomorrow. I expect good things from you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yo ho ho. – MrX 18:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your addition to Christian right has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a bold accusation and patently false. Please enlighten me as to how you came to that conclusion. – MrX

See the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have and you simply repeated the same claim. Please show which chunks of text you claim are copied and the source that you claim they are copied from. – MrX 20:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

Returned barnstar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Editor's Barnstar You continue to provide sourced content and reasoned answers even when provoked. I try to emulate your resilience and ethic! Insomesia (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you Insomesia. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and kind words! – MrX 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

CfA

Can you take a look at my recent diff at CfA (self reverted because I walked over 3RR without realizing this). The statement "This change in policy has not been confirmed by Chick-fil-A officials." does not appear to be backed by any RS that I saw. Plus it smacks of recentism. I created a section on the TP if you are interested. I'm also very curious about this TCRA organization, which appears to be a lobbying group. Thx.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I responded on the article talk page. – MrX 04:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Illinois Family Institute

The Rfc has closed and rough consensus seems to support inclusion, however one editor pointed out that it should probably cite the sources you provided. Would you be willing to add this content? Insomesia (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do it after dinner. – MrX 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done – MrX 01:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be far better to let an uninvolved admin determine this consensus. I'm not sure there is, in fact, a consensus to include the rationale, and if there is, the Chicago Jewish Star has "propagation of known falsehoods" but not "claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities". But I think " "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality in general" was a better rationale. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the RfC has obtained a clear rough consensus (13 Include/6 Exclude) At least two exclude arguments are high discountable (Cla68 and BelchFire), in my opinion. Feel free to request an official closing from an admin if you think that consensus supports excluding the content.

The content in question:

"In 2009, IFI was designated a hate group by the nonprofit civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center based on "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities"."

Is not only backed by the combined sources, but is also elaborated upon in prose later in the article.

It sounds as if you prefer less precise wording. Also, consider that "Attacking gay people" is hyperbolic, and would be likely to be challenged in the future on that basis. I think we need to stay as close to the sources as possible. – MrX 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you do realise you added the wording I'm defending, don't you? It was this edit, and it was a direct quote from this source. I don't know what a "clear rough consensus" is, but if you think that exclude votes should be excluded, then you need to get an admin. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC notification

Probably everyone likely to participate knows now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, you really don't need to notify every talk page on Wikipedia. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting that message on over 500 talk pages was excessive. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I'm not notifying every page on Wikipedia. I'm only notifying talk pages of articles that reference the topic of the RfC, per comments by Arthur Rubin. – MrX 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably still excessive. Paul Watson links the subject only in relation to an issue from 2003. The article itself has no real interest in the subject. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But there is not an NPOV way to identify which articles should be notified. Also, I'm nearly done, but will alter the inclusion logic to omit individuals, and articles that strongly duplicate similar topics. I apologize for the inconvenience, which I assume to be multiple entries on your watchlist. – MrX 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And now it's done – MrX 17:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted it from several that are on my watchlist, and which do not even remotely appear to be related. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. – MrX 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just a little overboard. However the results are interesting, notably the question about an RfC applying to multiple articles.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Did you see the number of responses already? I feel bad for the closing admin :)   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think I went overboard. I just favor a very inclusive approach. – MrX 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you did per the comments above. No big deal, but you might want to ask if there is a better way to advertise an RfC in the future. Though I do appreciate your attempts at trying to ask in a neutral manner.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

friendly note

Your recent edits to many article talk pages come very, very close to canvassing and/or campaigning. Please review Wikipedia:Publicising discussions for guidance on appropriately publicising discussions. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful advice. – MrX 00:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey MrX/Archive. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news!

My crystal ball tells me that your inbox now contains some sort of spam involving Nigerian princes and Viagra. Best to read it quickly before the generous offer expires! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

SPLC hate group designation is an ongoing thing, not a one-time event, so the current phrasing seems a bit off. Rather than say it "designated" an organization, I think it should say "designates" or "has designated". It's a fine point, but I believe it's significant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. – MrX 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

SSM

Since you are looking at this article, can you comment on the TP with respect to th "polls" issue? There seems to be some issue with respect to using a poll from the USA and applying it to this "global" article. Some discussion was progressing, then sidetracked by the usual suspects. By the way, nice fix to IFI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but let me do it tomorrow morning after a good night's sleep. Cheers – MrX 04:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. How long will it take someone to accuse me of canvassing?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)