User talk:MrX/Archive/July-September 2017

Active discussions


NPP BarnstarEdit

  The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
Thank you both for your dedication to patrolling new pages, and your contributions to the project space discussions on reform. Your efforts are noticed and appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you TonyBallioni, much appreciated. You deserve one as well for your very helpful NPP work. We are making some good progress chipping away at the queue, and if WMF stays engaged, we might actually catch up some day.- MrX 00:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words! Yes. I plan on pinging the WMF people tomorrow before they go on the long weekend to see what next steps are. There doesn't appear to be consensus that we need an RfC, so hopefully we can make the progress move quickly! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Professional Fighters LeagueEdit

Hi there! Thanks so much for switching it to a PROD that feels much more appropriate, but you have a ton more experience than I, so I'm happy to be wrong. I see your point about notability, and I know notability is not inferred, so I was wondering if you felt it right to go through all of those and PROD them all. I see you did one previous, although some are worse than others.. like this guy, I'm fine with it either way and trust your judgement on it, but it feels like if we are going to wipe them all out, maybe a quick consensus discussion first? Anywho, would love your sage feedback, thanks in advance! Oh and random point, I really like the design of your user page, few people put that much thought into the aesthetic aspect, so it was a welcome surprise. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Drewmutt: Actually I switched it to an WP:AfD nomination. WP:PROD is another type of deletion process. I have nominated two of these articles for AfD to see what others think about notability of this type of event. If they are deleted, I will nominate the others through the AfD process. I think they meet the criteria for deletion under WP:CSD#A7 ( organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), but since you objected to that for one of the articles, it's seems best to submit them for deletion discussions.- MrX 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ask for HelpEdit

hi dear MrX, I am Wikiposten. I had created the page "Mahdi Fadaei Mehrabani" and once you gave me a good advice and i modified the page. Now, a user (Yahweh) has written me that the page may be deleted. the page is about Prof. Fadaei one of the living Persian philosophers. I added some references to the bibliography of professor Fadaei. if the page needs to further References , please reply again. the link to his page is: thanks a lot,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposten (talkcontribs) 11:54, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Wikiposten, I think the article is safe from deletion now.- MrX 12:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Micheal GirschEdit

You conflicted with me, but I was doing exactly that. It wasn't A1, because we could identify the subject (and why he was being described), and it wasn't A7, because it makes an unverified credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We have some newbie patrollers that are making those kinds of mistakes occasionally.- MrX 22:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Katie MackEdit

Katie Mack is actually a self-described academic nomad and an expatriate; she shall be returning to the U.S. soon. kencf0618 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, Kencf0618. If you can think of any other categories to add to the article, please do. By the way, I have nominated you for the autopatrolled bit.- MrX 19:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
¡Mucho gracias! The disambiguation undoubtedly needs some work, and her academic work likewise needs to be cited, but that said the article is off to a good start, in my estimation. kencf0618 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Micheal Girsch, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, did you intend to un-review Micheal Girsch?- MrX 00:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Sort of yes. I meant to make it available for a real review. It had been tagged as A7, which was declined because it made a credible claim of significance (in fact, an ipso facto claim of notability, but not verified). It was then tagged as BLP. The author then put in a web site name. I then made the web site name into a raw URL reference, which satisfied removing BLP, and pulled BLP, so keeping the article. Since it had been "reviewed" as needing deletion, I then meant that it hadn't been reviewed as wanting to be kept. So sort of yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks, I think I understand.- MrX 01:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock log on accusationEdit

Hi MrX - please can I gently remind you to assume good faith. I only have used one account to make edits. I think if other people are making edits then they should also use proper log-ins but simply accusing me of using sock log ins is not fair. You need evidence to prove your assertions. I am a good faith editor. Thanks --Quadrow (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about?- MrX 21:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In here you made a revert and made comment that the change was made by an obvious sock log in. I assumed you were pointing that at me. If you weren't and just saying this was any old sock and not specifically me then its me who has jumped to conclusions - sorry.--Quadrow (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If you're not the same user as the IP, then obviously I was not referring to you. Curious that you took offence.- MrX 21:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not curious. Please don't subtly infer that those edits had anything to do with me. I assume it'd be quite an easy task to geographically show that they are not me. I'm just trying to engage in above board debate on the issue.--Quadrow (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverse search of a templateEdit

I was wondering if there is any way to see in which pages a particular template is used. I know this might seem a little odd, but sometimes I like to go through the userpages, and profiles of the users who have stopped editing. I used WP:RIP a few times but it is sort of depressing. I am thinking about finding inactive members through {{not around}}. Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry for bothering you with such a stupid, and weird request.
usernamekiran(talk) 12:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You can go to the template page and then click on "what links here" in the left column menu. Then you can filter out redirects and links, which will leave you with a list of users pages transcluding that template. Like this.- MrX 13:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Silly me. But last time I had done that with a template, it didnt show me the results. Anyways, thanks a lot. Also, could you please help me with User:Usernamekiran/NPR Stats? And your feedback/suggestions for improvement on User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices) will be appreciated a lot. Thanks. PS: kindly ping me whenever you reply. :)
usernamekiran(talk) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, I don't readily have access to those stats. You may want to start a discussion about it at WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers so that is an understanding of how those stats would be useful. That would make it easier to justify the effort or querying the database for the information. Unfortunately, I'm not very knowledgeable about the database tables and schema such that I would be able to run queries myself without investing considerable time learning.- MrX 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. No, you got me a little wring here. I am not asking you to run scripts/queries. I wanted to ask, is there any place that already has these stats? I also wanted your opinion about which categories for stats should be added to better analyse/understand the process, and workflow. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Karumadikuttan boat clubEdit

Hi, Did you intentionally add the ProdBLP template to Karumadikuttan boat club? Seems like it'd be an organisation rather than a living person?

Ta, AntiVan (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why I did that. I must have been distracted and used Twinkle in the wrong tab.- MrX 13:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 :-) AntiVan (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition monthEdit

I'm not sure what to do with these. Hayman30 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a G11 as far as I'm concerned. Any time an article includes phrases like "You can eat..." and "... teach them to eat healthy food...", that's promotional. Someone has PRODded it, so that's also a solution.- MrX 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, MrX.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies, currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice work Usernamekiran. The comma between "policies" and "currently" should be a semicolon or a period. - MrX 12:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Will do in few secs. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Please quit making malicious edits. Verifiability at wiki is not a legitimate defense as it means whatever the editors say it means (youtube videos, twitter if they like- not if they don't.) You are in danger of violating the 3r's rule as well as not assuming good faith. Please restore that statement as the book sold out of Amazon. All 100,000 copies. We can't do ALL the work for you. Do it yourself sometime! (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the revert of my editEdit

I add empty sections specifically because I don't have time to actually write them. By adding empty sections, I am attempting to motivate other users to expand them with useful(?) information. Zakawer (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, but you shouldn't do that. Article improvement proposals should occur on article talk pages. The content in articles is for the benefit of readers, not editors.- MrX 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


The department Sadads works for was responsible for one of the biggest and costliest blunders in Wikipedia history. I showed them the writing on the wall weeks before it happened and was laughed out. I offered to go to India at my own cost (It's only a 2-hour plane ride from here) and sort it out with my knowledge of local culture. Instead, they all jumped on a jumbo jet for another junket to Pune and just made matters worse. I ended up organising the biggest clean up of crap articles in en.Wiki's history (ask Voceditenore. That's one of the reasons I'm slowly losing my confidence in the WMF, and why I tend to be less positively responsive to their people who comment about ACTRIAL without being familiar with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. What was particularly demoralising, in addition to the literally hundreds of hours I spent on the IEP clean-up, was the huge amount of time I and others had to spend on Meta trying to convince the WMF that something was going seriously wrong. All we got was stonewalling and minimizing rhetoric until finally even they couldn't ignore the mess they had created. I'm not following ACTRIAL, but the WMF's input doesn't sound promising. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That was 6 years ago, and a completely different staff.....After action report found here and here we have yet to a run a project like that again, and don't plan to. 17:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads (talkcontribs)
Sadads, the education program is still majorly flawed. Ask Jytdog about the EJustice matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
There is obviously a lot of history here, but I hope we can move forward constructively. As far as I'm concerned, the ship has sailed on whether ACTRIAL is good idea or not. We are in implementation phase now, with or without help from WMF, and I think they realize that. It is important to keep a heathy dialog going, but I'm discouraged by WMF's rather obvious attempt to wrest control of ACTRIAL just as we were getting ready to implement it ourselves. I hope that WMF will truly act as a partner in this, and fulfill a role of supporting us in conducting the trial as it has already been planned. It is difficult for me not to see WMF's recent participation as anything other than delay tactics, attempting to reduce scope, and using a narrow set of measures to all but assure failure. Statistics are easily manipulated for a purpose; qualitative measures, not as much.- MrX 18:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, not only as anyone reading Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Archive 1 will be aware of the way the WMF still refused to implement ACTRIAL, but the Keyes-Fung effect on NPP was a blatant example of the Foundation delaying and manipulating stats to their own ends that were requested by a community led research project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Sadads, It doesn't matter whether it was six years or six months ago - the WMF has made many more serious blunders since. I cite the IEP as being a classic example of how the staff enjoy junkets, don't listen to to the volunteer community, allow funds to be squandered and used for corruption, and how an expensive third party consultancy had to be engaged to explain and prove these issues (I had private discussions with Tory Reid in the aftermath). I cite issues like these because you see ACTRIAL as having a negative impact while the IEP was the conclusive proof of its need, and I am just wondering what the Foundation's next big botch up is going to be (and there will be one). I have worked with donation sustained non-profits and NGOs and I'm fully familiar with their 'easy come, easy go' manner of handing he money. I live and work in a fast developing Asian region that includes some of the poorest countries in the world. I see it every day. That's also why I find it hard to understand why a WMF that's wallowing in cash uses the excuse it's on a shoestring as one of its regular delaying tactics. The WMF may be a non-profit, but it needs some professional business managers on its staff rather than having everything decided by idealists and computer programmers. I would rather see you supporting ACTRIAL than dismissing it without fully understanding what it's all about - it will be nice to hear you say in six months time that it did not affect your education plans after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Re WMF manipulation of statistics, the Flow "satisfaction" survey is illustrative, and took place this year. They simply don't "get it". RE the IEP and the WMF education program, they didn't quite learn their lessons or stop their activity. After the debacle on English WP, they thought that moving onto Simple English WP would be a great idea. Their glossy but utterly clueless attempt at a snow job on the Simple English administrators in June 2012, 6 months after Tory Read's report was published, fortunately came to nothing. The discussions at Simple are very illuminating. Particularly the interventions from the ultimate architect of the IEP fiasco and its stonewaller-in-chief, who is now the Executive Director of the Wiki Education Foundation, the chief project of which is the current Education program here. Plus ça change. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornubia CityEdit

Would you re-review the article at Cornubia City? --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The way the article is written is fine, but I still see no evidence of notability. You have cited GEOLAND, but for a subdivision, the notability guideline defaults back to WP:GNG. I would want to see at least three independent sources that have written feature articles on the subject. So far you have a newsletter, and tech news/advertising website, and the developer's website.- MrX 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Krylova, Alisa Sergeevna for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krylova, Alisa Sergeevna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krylova, Alisa Sergeevna until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer NewsletterEdit

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla articleEdit

I tracked an error in the Nikola Tesla article to an edit you made here. The previous version (before that edit) had a Nobel Prize rumors section. The version after your edit has the header and the first sentence and reference of that section missing (merging it with the previous section). Can you work out what you did wrong there and fix it? Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought it might be something simple like that, as I could see the missing text in the edit window, but wasn't sure what was hiding it. Is there a way that sort of thing can be picked up automatically? Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it took me a few minutes to find the error. MediaWiki gives a warning when a closing </ref> tag is missing or incomplete, but I guess in this case the software just assumes that all text after <ref is part of the ref tag until in encounters the next >. You would think it would throw a warning when it sees === in the ref tag. I would also think we have bots to find such errors, but I'm not certain.- MrX 15:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The upcoming trial.Edit

You will be very interested in this and may wish to comment there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. I will join the discussion tomorrow.- MrX 02:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits...Edit

I am following NPOV in that article which is clearly being abused to make something out of this nothingburger event which hopefully will be merged into a paragraph as it should be. The sources MUST BE CITED according to what is said in the sources, not what editors want them to say. Atsme📞📧

If you make bad edits, I will revert them. You are not following WP:NPOV. You added weasel words not found in the sources, and you added off-topic material to the lead. I'm happy to discuss this further at the article talk page.- MrX 13:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I highly recommend that you read the sources because I've included inline text citations with quotes from those articles, and removed opinionated editorial by WP editors. I have no doubt that what I'm doing is within policy but cannot say the same for the edits I've been modifying and correcting to be compliant with policy. And please keep in mind that there is an ongoing merge proposal for this article. The fact that so many editors are constantly changing it proves it's instability and that it is not ready to be a stand alone article in mainspace. The diffs will support what I'm saying.Atsme📞📧 14:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

Atsme📞📧 14:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you're being a bit childish here. You posted this alert without any regard to policy which says "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." Obvious since I just alerted you, I would already be aware of the discretionary sanctions. Also, I was the user who brought the Arbcom case that resulted in WP:ARBAPDS.
You obviously have very strong feelings about the Trump-Russia subject area. You have made some irrational claims[1][2], tried to game consensus, and you have flirted with edit warring. Those are not welcome behaviors for working collaboratively with others to improve controversial content. - MrX 15:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are not being truthful, and are the one with strong feelings about the article. I am using inline text attribution cited to the sources in an effort to present a NPOV in lieu of the conspiracy theories others are obviously attempting to present. Please stop hounding me - I was also well aware of the sanctions, so the same applies to you. From where I sit, you are the one who is being childish. I've asked you to stop reverting my edits and now you are trying to build some fallacious case to justify your actions. Please stop. I do not want this to escalate as it could very well result in both of us being blocked. Read the sources I've cited. If you disagree with the sources, follow PAGs and provide an opposing statement with inline text attribution as I have done. It's a simple process, and it is compliant with PAGs. Atsme📞📧 15:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I also want to add that your accusations of WP:WEASEL is incorrect as the guideline clearly states: Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. I used inline text attribution that supported the statement. You could have simply replaced the one word you opposed rather than revert the entire statement. Please, let's try to collaborate and get the article written properly. Atsme📞📧 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, sorry for butting in here. But I support MrX in the reverts, if the new article postings are not done in an Neutral Point of View rather than Biased then it falls in the Biased_or_opinionated_sources. Wikipedia tries to maintain neutrality instead of just opinionated views. Be careful if the annoying edits are still placed on the article then you may be blocked by an admin for not following the rules. Regards,  PrimeArgon  Φ  16:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme, I welcome anyone to examine my edits or talk page posts, and raise any concerns at the appropriate venue. The fact that you characterize content from reputable sources as "the conspiracy theories others are obviously attempting to present" is very telling, especially when viewed in the context of your edits on the article and talk page. - MrX 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Siddhanth LohiaEdit

Why did you contest deletion of Siddhanth Lohia? The page appears to have been created by the 12-year-old subject of the article which is a problem. There is no claim of significance in the article. He's a youngster interested in chess. I think that's fantastic, but he's ranked #616 in the world in his U-12 age group ( Quale (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Quale: Because it was nominated by a (now global blocked) IP editor with only a few edits, two minutes after the article was created. I have no objection to it being deleted if it doesn't meet our notability guidelines.- MrX 10:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. Quale (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Lebanese Association for the Development of Psychoanalysis 3Edit

Hello Mr X,

In the template of the page, it is said:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

I already began to improve it (notability sources). Should I delete the template in the beginning of the page ou you will have to do it.

Thank you again.

Psychesoma (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Psychesoma You are allowed to remove the proposed deletion template, but based on the weak references in the article, it may still be nominated for deletion via WP:AFD. For example, one citations says "Published in the Lebanese Official Journal, April 2, 2009." Which is ambiguous, and not a proper references (did you read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE?). This reference is blog. This one is a trivial listing. I'm afraid that none of these do much to demonstrate that the organization meets our notability guidelines.- MrX 11:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Half BarnstarEdit

  The Half Barnstar
For cooperating so well with Atsme on the article and talk page for Trump campaign–Russian meeting and for taking it with a good balance of grace and productivity, I award you the Left Half of the Barnstar! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha, thanks DarthBotto. I do what I can.- MrX 22:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDMEdit

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328Let's discuss it 21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC){| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |   |}

You're most welcome Cullen.- MrX 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Lebanese Association for the Development of PsychoanalysisEdit

Hello Mr. X,

Thank you for considering not to delete the page Lebanese association for the development of PsychoanalysisItalic text'. ALDeP (french acronyme of the association) is an association recognized by the largest psychoanalytical association in the world (International psychoanalytic association), namely that this association has been founded by S. Freud himself in 1910. ALDeP follows of course the ethical principles of this large association which trains candidates regardless of ideologies, religions and cultures. ALDeP have also scientific and regular exchanges with all international countries no matter the differences. As for the notability, please refer to the association's page in reference 3 and 4 (fot the European federation). Considering the notability of the members, please refer to members' scientific articles in : info.cairn (Marie Thérèse khair badawi, Nagib Khoury, Maurice Khoury...).

As for the present template, I didn't understand who must delete it.

If more modifications have to be made in the article please advice. Thank you very much for your help.


Psychesoma (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Psychesoma: Notabilty is not inherited by an organization being "recognized" by other organizations, or by the notability of some of its members (see WP:INHERITORG). Also, WP:ORGCRITE says "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.".
What would be needed to show that this eight year old organization is notable is a few articles from news organizations, magazines, journals, or books that discuss the association in some depth. If you can find some, then the article may not have to be deleted.- MrX 11:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mr X.,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
We have to say that this kind of scientific and therapeutic associations are only recognized by peers and elderly trainers and experienced persons. I mean peers psychoanalysts with experience in the field. More independent reviewers can only “describe" but they stay in a lay and profane position.
We can of course refer to the contribution of our members in large conferences (for example the French speaking conferences, etc.), the contribution of the president's association in the council meetings of the European psychoanalytic federation and so on. I don't know if these details could be interesting for an encyclopedic article.
As for the question of inheritance, one must distinguish on one hand the recognition by peers, after long and deep evaluations, and on the other, an inheritance taken without any effort (which is the case in the WP article you sent me to).
Nevertheless, I have added some reviews... hoping that it will be enough for the time being. I will search for some more wherever it’s possible.
Thank you once again for your time and recommandations.
Psychesoma (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mr X
Thank you again.
It’s possible for me to embed a copy of the official journal, as an official recognizing of ALDeP as a psychoanalytical association by the Lebanese Ministry of Interior ; but it’s obviously in Arabic. Should it be translated it by a sworn expert translator ?
Otherwise, I will continue improving the article.
Thank you
Psychesoma (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello MrX. Despite our exchange for improving the article, I'm surprised to see that it has been deleted.
Should I begin the process again?
Thank you.
Hi Psychesoma. Before I respond, I wanted to let you know that you should not create a new talk page section when you are posting about the same topic (see WP:TALK). I have combined each of your posts into one section.
I'm sorry that you were not able to find reliable independent sources to show that the organization is notable. I see that you already have a draft of this article at Draft:Lebanese association for the development of psychoanalysis. You should work on the article there. Once you have added a few sources so that it meets WP:ORG notability, you can request that I, or another experienced editor, review it and move it to the article space if it is ready. If you need to retrieve any of the content in the deleted article, you can request a WP:REFUND from CambridgeBayWeather. I hope that helps.- MrX 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'm a bit lost in so much details. Could you retrieve the deleted text, so I would work on it in the draft area instead of this very first version? Thank you very much for your help.

I am not able to retrieve the deleted text. You can request it from user CambridgeBayWeather.- MrX 11:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Psychesoma As it was a PROD I have restored it at Lebanese association for the development of psychoanalysis. It appears the PROD was removed at exactly the same time as I deleted it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much both MrX and CambridgeBayWeather ! Psychesoma

Archive Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meetingEdit

Can you adjust your oneclick archiver, so it archives the talk page to Archive 1 instead of Archive 13? I didn't want to move the page yet in case you archived some more things before adjusting. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's the script. It may be the archive directive though. I will see if I can fix it.- MrX 14:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Zaidan S.A.L.Edit

I blocked User:Marktabet123 as a sock of User:Joezaidan1998. The deleted contributions (visible here) make it really obvious. Just letting you know in case you are interested in taking further action.


GABgab 00:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know GAB. It looks like they restored some unsourced content, so I will take care of that.- MrX 01:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

David Duke reversionEdit

I had a look at that edit too and almost reverted, but I cannot check the source (China VPN issues) so I didn't want to wrongly revert. I think your reasons for reverting need double checking. First of all, in this revision the user IOnlyKnowFiveWords did put the names in chronological order from most recent to oldest, secondly a source was given. The only suspicious things about this edit were that 1)it was marked as minor when it is not and 2)It lacked an edit summary, but this could easily be an oversight on the part of the editor or a misunderstanding of what constitutes minor. In any case could we please check to see if David Duke's affiliation has changed since 2001 and edit if necessary I'll put a discussion on the talk page regarding this topic - many thanks! Edaham (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

IOnlyKnowFiveWords put the political parties in reverse chronological order without any explanation of why that is preferable to the long-standing version.- MrX 11:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - that required an explanation. Is his source accurate though? If it is the information still needs to go in, just in the right place. talk page probably the best place for this. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly. See my response on the article talk page.- MrX 12:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies for my over cautiousness - it's one of those articles Edaham (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Cue sports at the 2017 World GamesEdit

Why would you think it should be deleted if there exists Cue sports at the 2001 World Games, Cue sports at the World Games 2005, Cue sports at the World Games 2009 and Cue sports at the 2013 World Games?--QBear (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying those should be deleted too? As I mentioned in the AfD nomination, I couldn't find sources to show that the subject is notable. Apparently you couldn't either since the only source you added was the schedule from the organization that runs the event.- MrX 19:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
QBear has a point though. Could you please hold off on such nominations and instead seek broader consensus about such pages in general? If you (or others) start nominating all such pages (which usually have existed for years) at AFD, the process will soon be overwhelmed. Better to start an RFC about whether such pages should exist at all and then, if consensus is in favor of deletion, let all of them be deleted at one, don't you agree? Regards SoWhy 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply SoWhy. I'm in the midst of a wikibreak. The nomination of the article was trial balloon to get a sense of consensus as to whether the other articles should be bulk nominated for deletion. It appears that the closer simply did a vote count, rather than consider the strength of the keep arguments. I have no plans to nominate additional cue sports articles for deletion.- MrX 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There really is some humor in it...Edit

...considering what we've been through to get Trump campaign–Russian meeting compliant, our collaboration has damn near made the article worthy of a GA promotion.   Atsme📞📧 21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Fun(ny) times indeed!- MrX 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador Route 405Edit

I received your message just now. I could have sworn I posted a link to a Google Maps source showing the location of Route 405 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Could you please explain the source I posted, but got deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonSea31 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi JonSea31. A couple of housekeeping items before I answer: When you post on a talk page, your comments go on the bottom (WP:TPG) and you should sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~
It looks like you did add a source 32 minutes after I added the cleanup tags to the article. The source is reliable for the existence of the highway and other indisputable details, but the second and third sentences of the article are unsourced (and seem to be original research). I recommend adding appropriate categories to the article and possibly collaborating with other editors at WikiProject Canada Roads, WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador, and/or WikiProject Highways.- MrX 13:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


will you adopt me please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talkcontribs) 21:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry FIGHTER KD, but I am not able to adopt you. Perhaps someone else can help you.- MrX 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Awe man! Thank you for taking the time to respond!FIGHTER KD 22:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talkcontribs)

Official Trump PortraitEdit

There is no valid reason for the deletion of the image I uploaded and requested be added to the Donald Trump article. The attribution shows who the author is AND there are NO copyright issues per the White House AKA US GOVERNMENT >>>> This is simply an abuse of power or is a big mistake as there are no issues with Trump's Portrait.

THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE STATES: Copyright Policy Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. DMCA Notice The White House respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask users of our Web sites to do the same. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable law, we have adopted a policy of terminating, in appropriate circumstances and at our sole discretion, subscribers or account holders who are deemed to be repeat infringers. We may also at our sole discretion limit access to our Web site and/or terminate the accounts of any users who infringe any intellectual property rights of others, whether or not there is any repeat infringement. The portrait of Melania Trump is allowed on Wikipedia under the same circumstances thus the President's must be added too. Please remedy this issue and restore the image.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Joshualeverburg1, but there are valid reasons which were discussed here, here, and here.
In short, the photographer who took the photograph (or their agent) has claimed that the photograph was not released under a compatible license and has demanded that the photo be removed from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. A third party (the White House) does not have authority to license other's copyrighted work without permission. While it is true that a photograph produced by a U.S. Government employee is in the public domain, there is no evidence that that applies here, and in fact, it has been contradicted by the photographer. Attribution is meaningless. The existence of a photograph of Melanie Trump is irrelevant.- MrX 15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Rizal Park HotelEdit

You deleted the article while I was in the process of writing the lengthy portions of it with citations. I hope you can restore the article so I can save recent edits I made to the article. Thank you. — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK Lawrence Ruiz, I have restored the article so that you can add citations. Of course, you can also just revert to the previous version if that situation occurs in the future.- MrX 13:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the article. — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you for real?Edit

I just went back and read the source for a fourth time, just to be ever so careful. This is ridiculous. I should not have to waste this much time for something so simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm for real. I suggest reading the source a few more times until you understand it.- MrX 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Now I see. I was fairly sure you've been trolling me, but as I'm accused of throwing that term around too loosely, I decided to give you every benefit of the doubt. No good deed goes unpunished. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to self-revert. You're at four reverts, and given your other edit warring on that article and general battleground behaviour, it doesn't bode well.- MrX 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!Edit

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The passage in questionEdit

Thanks you for the notice MrX. The passage in question is a deletion of what appears to be a politically-motivated addition of extraneous information to an otherwise well-constructed entry. I understand that the approximate timing of the two events may lead over-imaginative minds to leap to conclusions, but the circumstantial timing does not satisfy the source/citation standard expected on Wikipedia entries. Unless an editor can demonstrate that the Podesta leaks began in a coordinated response to the Trump/Bush recording there is no reason to make mention of it in this entry. I'm sure you could agree with this.

Cheers, Z— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach191944 (talkcontribs)

@Zach191944: I and the other two editors disagree. The cited source is very clear about making the connection. In any case, please don't edit war to force your version into the article against the objections from three different editors. Please use the article talk page to make your arguments. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. - MrX 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

MrX, The source makes no mention of the motivation of the leaks. It merely states the timing is suspect and quotes a vague speculation by Podesta to Chuck Todd. I respect the work of you and the other editors, but facts are decided by consensus. There is no statement by Wikileaks regarding the intention of their timing, nor has there been any evidence uncovered demonstrating a cause/effect relationship between the Trump/Bush recording and this particular leak. The source referenced even states "We obviously cannot assess if the two events were connected".

Zach191944 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Z
Really Zach191944, this discussion should take place on the article talk page. But let me ask you two things about the content:

The first batch of emails were released less than one hour after The Washington Post published a controversial video of Donald Trump making lewd comments about women, though it is unclear if the two events were related.
— [3]

  1. Is there any part of this that is factually incorrect?
  2. Is there any part of this that is not verifiable in the cited source? - MrX 21:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


1. No 2. No

Let me ask you this: 1. Is there a demonstrable link between the two? 2. How would this headline differ than any other headline of the day in relation to the Podesta leaks? 3. Is there any relevance beyond narrative-driven conjecture? If so, please provide.

1. The link is the incredibly coincidental timing, and likely connection based on Wikileaks history. That's why so many people took note of it. 2. It's not a headline, so I don't understand the relevance of the question. 3. I don't know what you mean by "narrative-driven".- MrX 22:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Kim DavisEdit

Since you moved the image to the lead, but not the infobox, in this edit, I will assume good faith that you were proposing a compromise. However, please do not move the photo. This specific photo is best in the section in which the other individual in the photo is discussed. With two additional editors weighing in at the talk page against inclusion of the photo in the infobox, the consensus against having the photo in the infobox should be very clear. Should you edit war over this, I will report you at WP:ANI. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus either way, so kindly don't instruct me on what edits I can make. I honestly don't give a shit if you report me to ANI.- MrX 15:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

COI - of a different kindEdit

Hi MrX/Archive. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) .

Please do not re-insert false informationEdit

special:diff/796784838 you added back "McAuliffe interpreting it as a sign that he was sympathetic to the white supremacists" saying "Improper interpretation of source. Not an improvement."

I checked all 3 sources, none of them say that McAuliffe made that interpretation about Trump having sympathy for supremacists.

What you did was possibly a WP:BLP violation. You should have verified that a source actually made that statement before restoring it.

UPDATE just noticed special:diff/796790933 where you fixed the problem already, never mind. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer NewsletterEdit

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Comey memos for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comey memos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comey memos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 13:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Post 1932 US PoliticsEdit

Hi there. You suggested I contact you if I had questions. I have edited numerous US political pages of late and you didn't specify to which page you were referring. I expect it might be Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a BLP concern. I'd appreciate it if you would review the situation with that article and any feedback would be welcomed. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen your response. The original edit was mine. I didn't have the DWS page Watchlisted. Volunteer Marek reverted it or them, and I just became aware of it moments ago. Reviewing the Article's Talk page, I had seen that one editor supported my edit, and a fourth editor supported Volunteer Marek's position. I've suggested that an RfC would be appropriate and gave my reasons why I believe that is the case, and why I think the edit should be restored. I'm completely comfortable with any consensus decision. Activist (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just tried to post this

:I've just seen your response. The original edit was mine. I didn't have the DWS page Watchlisted. Volunteer Marek reverted it or them, and I just became aware of it moments ago. Reviewing the Article's Talk page, I had seen that one editor supported my edit, and a fourth editor supported Volunteer Marek's position. I've suggested that an RfC would be appropriate and gave my reasons why I believe that is the case, and why I think the edit should be restored. I'm completely comfortable with any consensus decision. Activist (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

and the edit conflict notified me that you had already responded. If I would be helpful, I could not post at all to the article's Talk page until much later today. Activist (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

An unrelated articleEdit

I sent you an email regarding a question about another article, unrelated to this one above. Nothing urgent, but I think your feedback might be helpful in my understanding of the situation. 13:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)\

It's not a clear BLP violation, but the material needs to be rewritten to reflect what is actually written in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism. The source refers to allegations of homosexual conduct by Lindh's father. Also, I would not use American Enterprise Institute as a source for such a contentious claim.- MrX 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back with me. I somewhat share your misgivings about AEI. If the allegations are only that, and are about Lindh's dad, rather than JWL himself, and in fact how relevant might they be, why not delete them entirely? Activist (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


For starting the RfC. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure.- MrX 14:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Poulter for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Poulter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Poulter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian Interference RFC on Sater emailsEdit

If you are going to remove my note on the inaccuracy in the premise of the RfC you opened (a fairly substantial and obvious inaccuracy in the basic facts of the situation), then perhaps you should correct the inaccuracy as well. Also, I believe I'm following suggestions on the RFC page: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" and would appreciate if you did not edit my talk page comments (or move them so far away from the relevant section). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the RfC question, so I trust that will do.- MrX 22:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid, and Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in which he wrote "Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."
To me, this reads as if Felix Sater wrote "Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process" to both Michael Cohen and Putin's aid. I don't know where you're getting this bit about any of Sater's communication with any aid to Putin or anyone in the Russian government, much less that he sent this specific email to anyone besides Cohen. I've checked the NY Times, Washington Post, and NPR articles, and they don't say anything about Sater's communication with Putin's aid. Do you have a source? If not, I'd suggest something along these lines:
Should the article include material about Felix Sater's series of emails to Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in which he wrote "Buddy our boy [Trump] can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process," [as well as material about Michael Cohen attempting to contact Putin's personal spokesman regarding the Trump Tower-Moscow? (include that as well, if that's what you meant)].
If you don't want to make any further changes, I'll be removing my correction anyways, since perhaps this is an issue of wording rather than facts. However, I think the language could be clearer, since it seems to imply something that did not happen. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Facebook StoryEdit

Hi MrX, regarding your edit here ("conform to source. Facebook never said they 'suspected'"). Here's exactly what Facebook said: "Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia" (source). Your edit turned that into, "Facebook reported that accounts operated by a Russian troll farm had bought $100,000 in ads [...]," which is stronger than the claim Facebook is making. Facebook says its analysis "suggests" the accounts were "likely operated out of Russia." I think that "suspected to be operated out of Russia" was a more accurate paraphrase, but if you have something better to characterize the level of probability that Facebook is conveying with the words "suggests" and "likely," then I'm open to another wording. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if you'd undo your revert, since it's the second one you've made to the article today (1 2). -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We could insert the word "likely" between "accounts" and "operated". Thoughts?- MrX 02:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
How about "likely operated out of Russia"? Since that's a direct quote from Facebook, we should keep the quotation marks around it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that's better than the version that I suggested. The current version in the article is fine also.- MrX 10:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I implemented the changes both of you suggested, though I see MrX that you are neither endorsing nor opposing Thucy.'s suggestion, "out of" Russia. My view is that it is preferred because it is the exact wording in the source, and "Russian" is different than "out of Russia," the second wording being a little more ambiguous (but possibly consistent with "Russian" depending on what emerges). Am I missing something from the source / is there a reason you'd prefer "Russian?" I'm assuming you've read more on the story than I have. -Darouet (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm fine with that version.- MrX 13:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd pay $$$ to see what happens if Thuc makes good this threat about the 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You're not being helpful here. Please leave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"Get off my internet" "Scoundrel!" What? Salut. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, again, you're not being helpful. I raised a content issue with MrX. If you don't have anything to say about it, leave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Lighten up, buttercup. Content stuff goes on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Have a slice!Edit

  Have a slice of ACTRIAL celebration cake! You earned it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I KNEW there was going to be cake! Thanks Insertcleverphrasehere.- MrX 01:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

How is the website's own code not a reliable source?Edit

On you reverted to 800747616 by Toreightyone you said that my edit had no reliable source. the pirate bay's own code I linked literally shows my edit is fact, and actually going to the website they use for it confirms that they do indeed offer A Crypto miner for Websites. here is the direct link to the script used in the code at The Pirate Bay. again at "" starting line 195 What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not only a reliable source (see WP:RS), but the text you added to the article relies on your personal analysis of the page source and javascript. That is simply not allowed on Wikipedia.- MrX 17:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"It's not true if I close my eyes"

nice one

And it's not my personal analysis, it's literally what the website says it provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. This is an encyclopedia with policies and guidelines for what passes as verifiable.- MrX 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer NewsletterEdit

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MrX/Archive/July-September 2017".