User talk:MrX/Archive/October-December 2019

Donald Trump#Racial views

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

I will if you can start a discussion on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 10:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideally I would just make edits that you would also agree with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

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

---

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

Greetings

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ LOL ~ by the way MrX ~ nice meeting you ~ ~ I'm sure we have a few days ~ I got a lot of reading to do ~ once again nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You too ~mitch~. Cheers! - MrX 🖋 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

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

Endorsements

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

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

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

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Yes, I would strongly support that. Hopefully it would lead to some sort of consensus. The three criteria you mention would be the most important ones, and there may be others. My question for you is: why should it not also apply to individual campaign/election/candidate articles? - MrX 🖋 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I envision arguments to treat the latter on a case-by-case basis. A non-notable person's endorsement might wind up getting a bunch of press attention and/or lead to some other newsworthy event such that it might make sense to include in a campaign article, for example. Most of those sorts of exceptions I can think of would apply mainly to the prose, however, so maybe it would make sense to just frame this as applicable to "lists of endorsements" wherever they appear? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think applying it to any lists of endorsements would make implementation more practical.- MrX 🖋 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I started a draft here: User:Rhododendrites/endorsements. I'd welcome your edits/feedback (ditto tp stalkers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, my inclination would be to post it to WP:VPR (with a likely post to WP:CENT and WikiProject Politics. Does that seem right to you? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look and it seems like a great start. I'll have a closer look at it, probably tomorrow morning.- MrX 🖋 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Rhododendrites, I think WP:VPR is probably the best place to post it. I would also announce it at WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and possibly WP:WikiProject United States.- MrX 🖋 20:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

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

You're welcome Steve Quinn. I'm going to propose specific wording in a few minutes.- MrX 🖋 13:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Good job

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

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

Comments out of order

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

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

Vandalism

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

RE: Nacamier Nunoi

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

data dump

Help User contributions For Activist talk block log uploads logs filter log Jump to navigationJump to search (newest | oldest) View (newer 100 | older 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 21:01, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Doug LaMalfa ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2602:304:45AA:E4E0:85D9:F698:481A:123A current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 21:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206‎ m Bruce Westerman ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 21:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ Steve Womack ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201‎ m French Hill (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Rick Crawford (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201‎ m Andy Biggs ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by S0091 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ m Paul Gosar ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:57, 30 October 2019 diff hist -199‎ Don Young ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -199‎ m Gary Palmer (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206‎ m David Schweikert ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Cardiffbear88 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ Debbie Lesko ‎ Reverted 2 edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ Mo Brooks ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted inappropriate, unsourced additiion to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205‎ m Mike Rogers (Alabama politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Bradley Byrne ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:51, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206‎ m Tom McClintock ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:51, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205‎ m Kevin McCarthy (California politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Activist current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Devin Nunes ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by MrX current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -214‎ m Steve Knight (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2600:100F:B00D:A99A:CD08:D127:C6C2:359C current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -217‎ m Ed Royce ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Ken Calvert ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Mimi Walters ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Koavf current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:48, 30 October 2019 diff hist -207‎ m Dana Rohrabacher ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Citation bot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Duncan Hunter ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ m Scott Tipton ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:47, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200‎ m Ken Buck ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ m Doug Lamborn ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Mike Coffman ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by RandomUserGuy1738 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:46, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ m Neal Dunn ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Yosemiter current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200‎ m Ted Yoho ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2601:18A:100:FC70:91E3:82F0:BC70:272C current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Ron DeSantis ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201‎ Bill Posey ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Deleted unsourced, inappropriate edit to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 20:42, 30 October 2019 diff hist -193‎ m Mike Enzi ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ m John Barrasso ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 20:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist +722‎ User talk:Pvmoutside ‎ →‎Speedy deletion of vandalization edits current rollback: 1 edit 20:00, 30 October 2019 diff hist -196‎ m John Cornyn ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Tobby72 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -196‎ m Bob Corker ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by InternetArchiveBot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:59, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ Lamar Alexander ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195‎ m John Thune ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195‎ m Mike Rounds ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195‎ m Pat Toomey ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:58, 30 October 2019 diff hist -198‎ m Rob Portman ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Edgar181 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:57, 30 October 2019 diff hist -195‎ m John Hoeven ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94‎ m Dean Heller ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:56, 30 October 2019 diff hist -86‎ m Ben Sasse ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Eruditess current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93‎ m Steve Daines ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:55, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93‎ Roy Blunt ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94‎ m Roger Wicker ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94‎ m Thad Cochran ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 86.162.251.142 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:54, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95‎ Bill Cassidy ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:53, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95‎ m Pat Roberts ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by OneToughNerd current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:53, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93‎ m Jerry Moran ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by Citation bot (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:52, 30 October 2019 diff hist -89‎ m Joni Ernst ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by Baane247 (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -86‎ m Todd Young ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last revision by 2601:600:9880:55E0:9DE5:7995:2B68:3B1E (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:50, 30 October 2019 diff hist -92‎ m Jim Risch ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2600:100C:B203:6CBD:D1F0:1E8:C84A:9019 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -92‎ m Mike Crapo ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -94‎ m David Perdue ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by 2606:6000:CC8F:9C00:85BA:E81F:5B62:71D6 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95‎ m Johnny Isakson ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by OneToughNerd current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -95‎ m Cory Gardner ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by PrimeBOT current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:49, 30 October 2019 diff hist -93‎ m Tom Cotton ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by SunCrow current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:48, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ Daniel Webster (Florida politician) ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206‎ m Gus Bilirakis ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside Tag: Rollback 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Vern Buchanan ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:45, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200‎ Brian Mast ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:44, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ m Carlos Curbelo ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Monkbot current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:43, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ Buddy Carter ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropriate primary source additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -205‎ m Drew Ferguson (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ m Karen Handel ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Trevdna current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:41, 30 October 2019 diff hist -203‎ m Rob Woodall ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Austin Scott (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Paleontologist99 current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -204‎ m Doug Collins (politician) ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Rich Farmbrough current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:40, 30 October 2019 diff hist -200‎ m Jody Hice ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:39, 30 October 2019 diff hist -206‎ Barry Loudermilk ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropraite additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:39, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Rick W. Allen ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:38, 30 October 2019 diff hist -202‎ m Tom Graves ‎ Reverted edits by Nacamier Nunoi (talk) to last version by Pvmoutside current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Rollback 19:38, 30 October 2019 diff hist -201‎ Raúl Labrador ‎ Reverted 1 edit by Nacamier Nunoi (talk): Reverted inappropraite additiions to lede (TW) current rollback: 1 edit Tag: Undo 19:37,

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

MelanieN, {X1/, MrX, Paleontologist99, Pvmoutside

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

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

Familiar

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

Great minds think alike! - MrX 🖋 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Block

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

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

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

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

Oldperson, here is my friendly suggestion, which you are free to ignore if you wish: Spend 90+% of your editing time improving encyclopedia articles about non-controversial topics, or doing other useful work in non-controversial areas. Do not behave like a moth drawn to the flame of controversy. This is a general purpose encylopedia, not "Controversypedia". Take a look at the articles I have written and expanded in the last ten years. The vast majority are entirely non-controversial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328Agreed, good advice from an editor I respect. I will follow it. Except I don't know where to look to find those articles. Oldperson (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, a person with a life as long and rich as yours must have a wide range of interests besides the controversy du jour, Oldperson. Simply employ the skills that you use to seek out a wide range of controversial topics, and instead seek out non-controversial topics to edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 Problem is that I don't know how to seek on WP. I don't have the tools.Where to start? How to start?. All I know is the stuff on my watch list. I have not a clue as to any other articles, unless I happen to stumble upon them. I still don't know what a rolling block entails.I can chase down stuff from other editors which have posted on the controversial articles which caused me problems, but those editors only get involved in these controversies,so bad example. One editor who was giving me grief spends the majority of their time, blocking and banning and reverting as if they were a Commanche counting coupeAnyway outside of haunting Teahouse, which isn't very productive, I have not a clue. maybe if I could patrol AfC.I might be able to help. I certainly can't edit for grammar and syntax, about all that I can do is help someone get started or jump over hurdles. Which is what I have done for three would be editors so far. So I really don't know where to start. If I follow the admins and editors with whom I have (negatively) interacted I wind up in the same negative territory as before because that is where they spend most of their time.Oldperson (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To start out, take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal, which is linked in the left hand toolbar. There are countless suggestions there. Also, think about where you grew up and the various places where you have lived over the years. Consider working on local history and biographies of influential people who were active in those areas 100, 200 or 300 years ago. Are you a fan of unusual musical performers who are notable but not "world famous"? Perhaps those articles need work. Do you have some hobbies? I used to be a California mountaineer when I was young, and so I did a lot of work on biographies of California climbers of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when I was getting started on Wikipedia. Do you have some favorite museums? Perhaps you could improve articles about them. The same goes for favorite notable but less famous artists. Pablo Picasso is already well covered. Do you know of a well-established, widely reviewed restaurant? Often these articles are in very poor condition. And so on. Good luck, Oldperson.

Sorry for dominating your talk page, MrX. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Got a digital camera? Go to Special:Nearby and list "interesting Wikipedia articles about places around you" (it also lists uninteresting Wikipedia articles about places around you). If an article includes an image, the image is shown in the list. Look for articles about places around you that need images. Go to those places and take pictures of them. Upload the pictures to Commons and add them to the articles. Fun and easy. I could help with the technical details when you're ready.

If you have any digitized photos from your travels, see if any of them would improve existing Wikipedia articles, even if the articles already have images. Example: Image captioned "Dumping at an RV campground in Canada" at Recreational vehicle terms (top of an ex's head). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Arlene Blum in 1977 003

The photos do not need to be digital. I took this analog photo using film 42 years ago, and here it is in Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

True, if you have a color scanner, know someone who has a color scanner, or are willing to pay someone like FedEx Office to scan them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson It looks like you have already received great advice from Cullen328 and Mandruss, so there's not much I can add. You referred to "rolling block", but I wrote "escalating blocks", which means a short block on the first offense, followed by increasingly longer blocks for each subsequent offense. As a rule of thumb, comments on a talk page should be made with the clear purpose of changing the article, and they should be specific and citable to reliable sources. They should not be worded in such a way that those holding a different point of view are so shocked and/or offended that a political argument ensues.(Examples: [3][4]). Talk page comments should be succinct and on point (how a political issue affects you personally is not on point).

There are many opportunities to improve Wikipedia. My advice is to follow your interests, but non necessarily topics that you are emotionally invested in (like politics, social justice, climate change). Writing articles from scratch as you have already done is a great way to contribute. You mentioned restaurants. Several years ago, I assigned myself the task of writing several bios for Michelin starred chefs after watching a biopic on Paul Liebrandt. Often, as I'm reading online, I will come across an interesting subject like Lick Me I'm Delicious, Marengo warehouse, or Hügelkultur that's begging for a Wikipedia article. If you need help coming up with subjects in your area of interest, I'm happy to lend a hand. That's not to say that your contributions in American politics are not welcome also. You just need to focus your efforts on specific edits backed by specific sources, without the extra commentary.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had never heard of rolling blocks and Rolling block was no help. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch

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

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

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

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

BullRangifer, it's hard to take you seriously when you bloviate like that.🤣

I'll paraphrase what I wrote a couple of hours ago: if you want to show that Quackwatch is a reliable source, especially for BLP content, you should be able to show that other reliable sources routinely cite it; that it's under some sort of independent (from the author) editorial control; and that it has a reputation for fact checking. Telling me that there is "volunteer network" does not accomplish that. Show me that JAMA, The Chicago Tribune, or ABC News have cited Barrett's quack watching expertise and then we can have an intelligent discussion.

By the way, since you say you work in the heath care field: with the trillions of dollars spent on heath care in the U.S. alone, how come the industry can't manage to cobble together its own authoritative resource to expose quackery? - MrX 🖋 20:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, check the Quackwatch article, you'll see something of a list of other reliable sources that cite QuackWatch. But I don't blame you at all: QW always looks odd to those unfamiliar with it, because it is almost as old as the internet and was quite possibly the first site dedicated to critiquing quackery. We're used to a certain way of websites presenting themselves. QW predates all of that by many years. It's very Web 1.0, it doesn't care about SEO or responsive design or any of that, it's 100% about the content. Guy (help!) 11:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm always happy to look deeper, but I don't have time to make it a major research project. As with everything on Wikipedia: links and diffs make the argument. The site is definitely Web 1.0, but I dispute that it doesn't care about SEO...

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

it's just not good at it.- MrX 🖋 11:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks

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

You've got mail

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

Trump inquiry in lead

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

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

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

American Oversight

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

OK, thanks Activist. - MrX 🖋 14:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Thanks for your continuing dedicated editing. Activist (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You are making a series of bad reverts

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

I do not see a source that states Scott Burcham is an American-Israeli. Perhaps you could point it out to me. - MrX 🖋 03:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this month he obtained Israeli citizenship (you deleted that fact from the lede, rendering him only an American citizen) so that he could play in the Olympics for Israel was reflected here ...

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

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

You also for unexplained reason deleted that he majored in Economics. With the supporting ref. Why would you do that?

And you reverted other proper copyedits. 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Are you joking? The source does not refer to him as an American-Israeli. - MrX 🖋 03:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would you think I am joking? The wp article already indicted that this American-born ballplayer was American. The only change I inserted in this regard was adding the result of his having obtained Israeli citizenship this month. If you are both American and Israeli (and there is no indication he did anything but add Israeli citizenship - which is clear, and is the one part you deleted) then you are American-Israeli. American and Israel both allow dual citizenship with each other as you can easily see from the wp article on the dual citizens, so this does not shock anyone. You, however, faced with an article clearly stating that he had become an Israeli citizen, deleted both the rs support and the text. Why? 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

See for example this article ("Twenty-four players, many with dual American-Israeli citizenship, are playing for the team ...") as background, on the phenomenon of Americans taking on Israeli citizenship and becoming American-Israeli to play baseball for Team Israel. And this one ("fueled by its soon-to-be American-Israeli comrades, Israel will compete"). And this one ("a forthcoming documentary...follows both new and old faces as 10 American-Jewish baseball players become dual American-Israeli citizens in order to compete."). 2604:2000:E010:1100:BD41:3637:E040:54FD (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good faith

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

Very well, but some advice for you: taking multiple bites at the apple to get someone sanctioned does not reflect well on you.- MrX 🖋 18:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

That Yellow Box

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

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

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

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

Whenever you get chance, have a look at the above and give feedback. TUK currently blanket reverting the information he wanted in the article at this point because of "consensus" that he wants to be part of, but wont explain his objections beyond hurt feelings. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde & The unrelated kinsman, OK I'll have a look when I clear my mind. Probably late morning UTC. - MrX 🖋 03:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

In Peace

Hi, I thought your

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

in the Talk:Hunter Biden was bulling.

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

No, that's not bullying. That's mild criticism and guidance, which is well within the norm of conduct standards at Wikipedia. You have made 41 edits to the talk page, focused entirely on promoting a marginal narrative that Hunter Biden was on the take. You have gained no traction in that effort, because you show a lack of understanding of our basic policies and guidelines. For example:

• Here you attempt to conduct original research based on a self-published source.[11]
• In early October, you promote content based on based on John Solomon conspiracy theories.[12]
• Here you show a poor understanding of WP:WEIGHT.[13]
• Here you ignored advice from a more experience editor and instead doubled down.[14]
• Classic WP:SYNTHESIS.[15]
• Promoting a debunked conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had the Ukraine prosecutor fired to protect his son.[16][17][18]
• WP:REHASH: [19]
• Original research again, and again, and again.[20][21][22][23]

You need to have some clue to work on articles about controversial subjects. As some point, much earlier than the present, you should have realized that consensus was firmly against your proposals and you should have moved on. Instead, you persist in what, to me, appears to be war of attrition. You should WP:DROPTHESTICK and apply your 12 year/933 edit experience to improving the encyclopedia in other areas. Personally, I've reached the limit of my patience. If you don't stop pushing these edits, I will raise the issue at WP:AE and there is very good chance that you will be topic banned, based just on the evidence I've provided above. Word to the wise.- MrX 🖋 14:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed thoughts. We disagree, and I think the above reflects your point of view. lets stay Civil, and move on.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Buster7. Happy holidays to you as well. - MrX 🖋 18:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of cast members of Billy Elliot the Musical for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cast members of Billy Elliot the Musical 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/List of cast members of Billy Elliot the Musical (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GentlemanGhost (séance) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of FBI secret society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FBI secret society 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/FBI secret society until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Victoria Toensing

Hey, if you're not too busy, maybe you can split off her son, the lawyer who now works for the Justice Department (I know, it's crazy), as a separate article--seems he's notable and important enough, and covered by news outlets. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well Drmies, I don't know much about him, but I'll look at it later to see if it's something I can help with.- MrX 🖋 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This edit summary brightened my day. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

😆 Thanks MJL. I'm glad someone appreciates my wit. - MrX 🖋 16:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I do believe your recent edits on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders should be discussed on the talk page considering some of the material you are removing is valid material. With a 1RR in place, removing such large amounts of material is in conflict with several discussions ongoing on the talk page. I know you were told on the noticeboard about issues, but you haven't exactly been addressed of any of the actual discussions going on there.--WillC 15:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: I will be happy to respond to any specific objections to the material I removed on the talk page. If there is a discussion already ongoing about the specific material that I removed, please let me know. Please keep in mind that per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. - MrX 🖋 16:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

While ONUS does say "achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content" it also says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." So really, onus is a double-edge sword, because at current time a consensus must be made it order to remove it first.--WillC 16:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have to show that there was consensus for including the material in the first place before you can assert that consensus is required to remove it. That principle has stood the test of time in numerous discussions all over Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 17:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well the policy should say that if it is true. It doesn't. So you can't just say it means that when it doesn't say that. It says a consensus is needed to remove and a consensus is needed to include. That is how the policy works then.--WillC 17:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I already quoted the policy, WP:ONUS. It's also covered in WP:CONSENSUS. This is a widely accepted Wikipedia principle, which you would probably know if you had not just recently changed from almost exclusively editing wrestling articles to almost exclusively editing Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. There is no first mover advantage in editing. Can you imagine how chaotic edit would be if there was? - MrX 🖋 18:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That is in no way a personal attack. That is logically absurd. To call that saying I'd report you for disruptive edits by misconstruing statements would be to call your warning to me a personal attack for literally doing the exact same thing. I said you were lying, which you objectively did. You said no one had shown you there was a consensus and I pointed directly to a policy that established a consensus which other editors agreed with me on that point. The text was clear. I also said if I could, and the reasoning behind that is I feel it would be silly to go that route over this. I have attempted several times to have a discussion with you and you have repeated the same things and now are attempting to rush through a consensus exactly like I said would happen yesterday now that editors are showing up to be involved in the discussion and backlash is occurring. In no way did I even threaten you with legal action, to out you, use personal information, call you a nazi, defame you, etc. I said you were lying when you said you hadn't been shown a consensus when I have wrote it almost 10 times in replies to you and you other editors regarding the exact same. I even put it in a edit caption to my recollection.--WillC 22:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

With some solemn reflection, I wish to bring you an olive branch so that we can start over on this situation because I think we both are starting to think and feel the worst about each other and seeking things that may or may not be our intentions. Afterall, this is a text conversation and it lacks tone. So it this spirit, I apologize if I have come off as hostile. I will show some humility and give you that. This is a contentious subject and it provides a shade that causes partial blindness.--WillC 22:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Great. Let's put it behind us and try to stick to commenting on content, not editors. I think we have the same goal of making sure the article is a faithful representation of the subject and that it adheres to the highest standards of Wikipedia. With regard to consensus, we can request a formal close at WP:ANRFC once the discussion slows down. - MrX 🖋 22:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I will agree on that. But I feel we need to slow down this discussion and actually focus on these points. We have been arguing over whether a consensus exists and yet haven't even solved the issues with the edits in the first place. We are getting somewhere with Paste. However, the issues with FAIR, CNN, etc. still exist. We need to start focusing on what the article is actually about. This was brought up at the RS Noticeboard, politics moves fast and editors don't focus and act irrationally in a haste. This isn't getting us anywhere.--WillC 22:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello MrX: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you DBigXray. Greetings of the season to you as well. - MrX 🖋 18:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはMrXたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Miraclepine. A fancy happy new year to you too. - MrX 🖋 03:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Fred Hampton RfC

No problem. To be honest, I was leaning towards closing this as "moot" because it someone had labeled this incident as an "assassination" & all involved appeared to have tacitly accepted this. -- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there you go. A few other RfCs I closed today were so old that they were also pretty much moot. - MrX 🖋

Donald Trump

Hey there. Please self-revert your recent restoring of those references that I removed. I made sure only to remove redundant references, because these facts don't need more than one reference each. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and we have discussed this before on your user talk page and on the article talk page. Remember when I asked you "The next time you are think that citations should be removed, would you please consult other editors on the talk page first?" Given this pushback, I don't understand why you are still doing this. You can't just continue doing whatever you please over the protests of other editors.

These refs were added by multiple experienced editors who deemed them worthy of inclusion. Controversial content routinely has 2-3 cites to demonstrate due weight and provide diverse references for readers attempting to research further. If you have a good reason for removing the references, it should be easy to convince other on the talk page and obtain consensus. - MrX 🖋 03:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the edits boldly per WP:BOLD since they were relatively inconsequential, which doesn't require discussion. I was also editing the section at the time to make the wording more concise and removing some unnecessary details that were likely added at the time due to recentism. If you cannot revert the restoring of those references, at least restore the length tag at the top of the article, as the length of the article is still a significant issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The length tag has been discussed many times, and most of us believe it is utterly unnecessary because there is no need to alert editors. They already know about it. On the matter of deleting citations: Why would you make the same kind of bold edits that were objected to previously on multiple occasions? That's not being responsible, nor respectful of other editors. In fact, it's kind of uncivil. - MrX 🖋 03:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Most editors support the use of length tag, but there was a discussion where we wouldn't have the tag given that the article length issue would be resolved. Of course it wasn't resolved, so there's no reason to omit the tag now. Clearly there is a need for editors to be made aware of the issues of the article's length with the tag, just as we do for all the other tags. If you think this situation is incredibly unique to warrant not having such tag, please take that to the article talk page.

I haven't made any edits to the references of the impeachment section before. The reason I made those edits was to improve the article, as those references I removed are unnecessary. It is very uncommon for these removals to be objected to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's "very uncommon" for those removals of references not to be objected to. Once they are removed, it is huge work to relocate them or additional similar references, and the reason for what would otherwise appear to be overciting has been discussed and explained (to you) on the article talk page in the recent past. Your replies to MrX here are entirely unresponsive to his good faith effort to make the point even more clear to you. Same applies to the length tag. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've found it to be more common that removing references is reverted on the Donald Trump article, but generally it's very uncommon to be reverted. My explanations are also in good faith. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX is correct.

Point of order 1: Here is the discussion where you failed to gain consensus for that type of removal a mere six weeks ago. As you can see, a number of editors invested significant time in that discussion. Even if you claimed that there was no consensus against the removal either, which would be a hard case to make, the default in the case of no consensus is to preserve status quo ante, and those refs have been in the article long enough to achieve SQA status.

Point of order 2: This discussion should have been started on the article's talk page, where Point of order 1 would have been even more obvious, possibly even obvious to you.

Point of order 3: It is very uncommon for these removals to be objected to. is irrelevant since, even if true, it would not supersede Point of order 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That was for a completely different section than the section I was editing earlier, and completely different references being removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In my view the principles addressed in the discussion were general in nature, not specific to those cases. But let's say we were dealing with an entirely new issue here. In that case, you made a BOLD edit, it was disputed by MrX per BRD, and you have yet to gain talk page consensus for it. Instead you came here and said in effect that MrX's BRD revert was improper.

If you want to pursue this, the only legitimate course is to open an ATP discussion and be prepared to take some heat for doing so – in a larger context where, per discussions at your UTP and elsewhere, a number of experienced editors are already upset about your pattern of editing behavior. Is it worth it to you? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BOLD does not apply to potentially controversial edits. Rather, collaboratice caution is advised. Other editors have objected to such edits before, so don't do it again. Always start such attempts by first discussing it on the talk page. If no one objects, then be bold. BOLD is not a blank check. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If no one objects, then be bold. BOLD is editing without prior discussion, or even attempt to discuss – by definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's technically correct, but once other editors have objected, it's no longer the case, and 123IP knows that their whole pattern of editing constantly meets strong objections from multiple editors and admins, and yet they keep citing BOLD for the same types of edits. It's that completely obliviousness to criticism I'm addressing. It's an extremely IDHT pattern we're seeing.

Don't miss my modifiers (potentially controversial edits). When one already knows that an edit is potentially controversial, caution is advised, and being bold can be disruptive and uncollaborative. It's an attempt to force ones will on othere editors when one already knows they won't like it. Otherwise, be bold when seeking to improve the encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, given that you think it's okay to call me autistic, I don't see why you think your comments to me would be appreciated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoa! I did not call you autistic. That's a misrepresentation, so don't try to inflame this thread and distract from the issues at hand. Such a personal attack on me is very serious. Please strike it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, never call an editor autistic. That is, unless (1) you're prepared to argue that (a) autistic people can decide not to be autistic, or that (b) Wikipedia should ban autistic people from editing, and (2) you have a conscious or unconscious site-ban wish (I would !vote in favor). I have a vague idea that you're in some kind of health care field, so I would've thought you would be more sensitive. I happen to be somewhere on the spectrum in my opinion, but I've never mentioned it in over six years because it's irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, I did not call 123IP autistic, and I'm surprised you'd jump on that false claim. Sheesh! That is a serious personal attack on me and a distraction, and by joining in you are reinforcing and amplifying it. Keep in mind who just attacked me with that charge and "consider the source". Please strike your comment.

I VERY familiar with the subject of autism. My own son has what we previously called Asperger syndrome, in fact, several in my wife's family members do, and I have some of those traits. Although Asperger's is on the autistic spectrum, I still think of it as a vastly different diagnosis than what we normally think of as autism. It's not a net negative. Aspies are often very gifted and intelligent. They just tend to have blind spots, misunderstand normal conversations, don't always react normally, and do all those things in different ways than normal people do. Hey, we're all imperfect!

No, I did not call 123IP autistic. That's an inflammatory misrepresentation of a previous question put to them. Don't allow them to distract from the subject of this thread with that false accusation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Stricken pending actual evidence. Until I see that diff, any respect I had for Onetwothreeip is gone, and I won't be seen taking their side on their UTP again. I don't like being made to look the fool, and I don't soon forget things like that. As for Don't allow them to distract from the subject of this thread, I wouldn't expect MrX to allow this thread to continue much further anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I believe they are referring to this. Specifically I'm really beginning to wonder if you might have Asperger syndrome, like my son.(talk page stalker) PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm. Unstricken after actual evidence (thanks PackMecEng). BullRangifer, saying an editor "might have Asperger's" is not "calling them autistic", if you want to be hyper-literal about it (sort of like an Aspie might do, ironically) but it's close enough for our purposes. Other editors' suspected mental issues or challenges are off limits at Wikipedia, no matter what your good intentions, full stop. I've done that once in my Wikipedia career, when in a high state of frustration I asked an editor whether they had a diagnosed reading comprehension problem, and I was correctly corrected by a third editor. Don't do it.

I now hope to retire from this discussion and reflect on what I have learned from this debacle. In any case I think we've bothered MrX enough and any continuation should be at my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to continue the discussion here if you like. I don't have anything to contribute about ASD. - MrX 🖋 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you're obviously not proud of what you said, but clearly it was a bad idea to attempt to deny that you made the comment, or trying to separate Asperger's from autism. Despite the system of talk pages and communicating with other editors actually being by far the easiest function of Wikipedia for me, you've unfortunately been trying to change that for me by appearing in many places that I happen to be. My username is Onetwothreeip, not "123IP" or "IP123" as you like to call me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"Not proud"? I was seeking, in good faith, to find an excuse for what are your odd and disruptive editing patterns. I have often seen editors offer their diagnosis as an excuse, one we try to honor. Lacking that information makes your editing patterns less excusable. I did not "attempt to deny" making a comment I made, because I did not make it. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least be accurate and I'll admit and discuss it. I'm well aware that everything is open here, and that a diff to the conversation could easily be produced, so there was no effort to hide or deny what I did say. I was just denying what I didn't say. I'm sorry I offended you and will stay away from that subject in the future. That will also mean I can't give you the benefit of the doubt, because AGF is not a suicide pact. I will continue to call out editing patterns and actions which are disruptive, as do many others. The "123IP" thing is just a quick shorthand and no offense is intended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The diff of your inappropriate remark has already been linked in this section by PackMecEng. I am aware of your opinions of me, and they require no further repetition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with MrX's blessing or at least permission. Call out disruption as you see fit, but please skip the part about finding an excuse. A given editor can meet community behavior expectations, or they can't and need to find a different hobby, and the reasons they can't meet them are completely irrelevant. Start accepting Asperger as an excuse for failing to meet community expectations, and be prepared for the onslaught of editors suddenly claiming Asperger, many of them truthfully, many untruthfully. We are not going to institute a system whereby mental health professionals can submit certifications of their diagnoses of Asperger in Wikipedia editors. And what about other mental challenges, including sociopathy or serious anger management problems? Wouldn't they deserve special consideration too? What about editors who suffered serious abuse as a child? What about PTSS? No, everybody has an excuse, including me. We already accept provocation as an excuse for bad behavior and are living with the consequences daily. We don't need any more types of excuses. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is why we have norm-based systems. They protect users' privacy, prevent forking into a thousand different explanations for good and bad participation, and enable communities to function without devoting undue resources to meta-issues and enforcement. Editors' participation can be measured against the policies and guidelines, and it's better for everyone that the reasons for individual violations need not concern the community. There are all sorts of cognitive and emotional profiles that would make constructive WP editing unlikely. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with this, and I'd like to add my own thoughts. The three unfortunate assumptions I see most regularly made on Wikipedia are that another editor is psychologically atypical, male, and has interests in technology. This project would do a lot better if none of these were presumed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss and SPECIFICO, you both make very good points. My personal disposition is a tendency to excuse bad behaviors when there are extenuating circumstances. I know I shouldn't do it, but that's just how I'm screwed together. Too much compassion? But you are both right. It is the behavior we must judge when measured by adherence to our policies. BTW, Onetwothreeip has now repeated their false accusation against me at ArbCom. That's not fair. I recognized my error and apologized, but so be it. I have learned to not expect fairness here. The last time I was at ArbCom nearly cost me my life. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your own words, and the relevant diffs, speak for themselves. At ArbCom all I did was confirm what someone else said, and they provided the proof and the context for that. Sure, the problem is that you're too compassionate. You actually haven't apologised either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did apologize above: "I'm sorry I offended you and will stay away from that subject in the future." I didn't realize you would take it so literally and did not expect you to see it as an accusation but more as a questioning in hopes of a clarifying response. A simple "no" (or "yes") would have sufficed. I'm not going to concern myself with that subject in the future. Peace.

My family has lived with this for many years. In the beginnings life was extremely difficult, and it wasn't until our son was in 3rd or 4th grade that we got a diagnosis, and then the windows of heaven opened. There was loads of help for him, and we didn't have to pay for any of it. It was included in our taxes. A taxi came to our house every day and drove him 45 minutes to a special school and back in the evening. It was great. It's a painful subject, but we have learned to deal with it, and my son is getting the help he needs. He's nearly 30 now and can't hold a job, but he's absolutely brilliant. A really fascinating guy. He taught himself the rudiments of Japanese, just because anime and manga interested him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Given that I wasn't offended, doesn't that mean you aren't sorry for anything at all? Even if I was offended, all you would be sorry for is offending me, not for saying what you said. Unfortunately you wilfully use it as an argument against editors that you dislike, which puts into doubt what else you have to say about it. I hope you cease reflecting on editors personally, and focus purely on editing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not mean that. I used a very poor choice of words that I now see could have offended. Whether or not you were offended is secondary to that. I need to be more careful.

I do like to focus on editing itself, especially on article talk pages, but everyone, not just myself, sees that you have several patterns of editing that are offensive and disruptive. Myriad editors and administrators tell you this all the time, so don't try to place the blame on me. Look at yourself. We are forced to tell you not to do it. The intersection between you and your editing cannot be avoided. We cannot criticize your edits without mentioning you, because you are the one doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You clearly said "sorry I offended you", but you didn't offend me, so you haven't apologised for anything, and didn't attempt to apologise for your own words. You only attempted to apologise for the effect of those words. I can't make you apologise and I'm not asking you to apologise, but that is the record.

You can criticise edits without attacking editors, and if you cannot, then it would be better not to get involved in criticism altogether. What I find most egregious is you claiming to speak for other people. Other editors are more than capable of speaking for themselves and elucidating their own views. You are not forced to tell anybody anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I give up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Note: you can move this into a new section if you consider it off-topic, but I think it is relevant here, since it concerns similar behavior from the same person.

Could you (Mr. X) please take a look at Onetwothreeip's recent mass removal of citations from the Race and intelligence article, and the discussion about those changes on the article talk page? He's recently made the same removal a third time, after having been reverted twice. On the article's talk page, only one editor (Aquillion) has expressed any support for his changes, and four other editors (myself, AndewNguyen, Bpesta22, and Toomim) all have opposed his changes or said that they shouldn't be made without consensus. I've suggested that he could propose updates to the article one section at a time, but he rejected that offer.

This is an article on a highly technical topic, so I'm not asking for an opinion about the substance of his changes or the sources he thinks are unreliable. I'm asking what to do about the behavioral issue, because it's clear from his past actions on other articles that he's completely unwilling to listen to other editors, or to stop repeatedly making the same change when consensus opposes him. I don't know how to deal with an editor who has this attitude. 2600:1004:B157:DD6E:4C8B:58B5:234B:46B1 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's completely against guidelines to attempt to solicit editors to an article discussion like this, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. If you want to appeal this to another place, an existing talk page discussion where the only connection is that there are editors who disagree with me on something, is not the appropriate place to do so. Just for anyone who hasn't been following the Race and intelligence article, editors like this IP account have been trying to add in the fringe racialist views of discredited researchers such as Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, who proposed that people of certain races have inherently less intelligence than people of other races. These are decidedly unreliable sources for views well outside the accepted mainstream of psychological study. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Race_and_intelligence for his effort to convince others that all the sources he removed are unreliable. This argument hasn't gotten any traction thus far.

Also note that the material he's removing has been in the article for at least five years. I'm not sure exactly when it was added, but it appears to have been added a little at a time by consensus in about a dozen earlier discussions. Onetwothreeip is misrepresenting my actions by saying I'm trying to add anything to this article, when in fact what I'm doing is opposing his unilateral removals of long-established material. 2600:1004:B157:DD6E:4C8B:58B5:234B:46B1 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I only started that discussion there earlier today. If you want to know what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard thinks about using people like Philippe Rushton as sources, search through their archives. You'll find that not only are those people considered unreliable, but sources that rely on those people are considered unreliable because of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Where at the RS noticeboard has there been a consensus that "not only are those people considered unreliable, but sources that rely on those people are considered unreliable because of that"? I searched for earlier discussions about Rushton at that noticeboard, and the only result I found that resembles what you're describing is this discussion, about the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. The main reasons that journal was found to be unreliable were not due to Rushton's involvement, but because (quoting Pavlor) "1) there is no visible editorial staff; 2) there is next to no impact factor."

The fact that this journal was found to be unreliable is completely irrelevant to your recent removals, because none of the sources you removed were published in that journal. You removed citations to papers published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, in American Psychologist, in Personality and Individual Differences, and in Current Anthropology, and to textbooks published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. 2600:1004:B157:DD6E:4C8B:58B5:234B:46B1 (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't find those sources to be particularly unreliable. The works of people like Philippe Rushton were unreliable, and citing those works incessantly throughout the article is completely undue for the reasons I have given. Otherwise reliable sources have published works by unreliable authors. If you search the archives of the noticeboard for "Rushton", you will find several results which all find that those works by those fringe researchers are unreliable. Now what does any of this remotely have to do with MrX's user talk page? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been claiming for the past week that all the sources you removed were unreliable, and that's also the argument you're currently making at the RS noticeboard... But now you're saying you think the sources are reliable, but they nevertheless fail RS policy because of who the authors are? Where is the policy basis for the distinction you're making? And how can anyone have a discussion with you if your argument changes each time someone challenges it?

Mr. X, I'm asking you sincerely, can you please find a way to stop this insanity? Otherwise I, Corker1, BullRangifer, and everyone who edits the same articles as Onetwothreeip will have to keep dealing with it indefinitely. Onetwothreeip seems to have an unlimited amount of time to keep restoring his removals of sources from all these articles, but this isn't how I want to be spending my own. 2600:1004:B157:DD6E:4C8B:58B5:234B:46B1 (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not at all changed what I have said on this matter, it just seems that you thought I was referring to the publishers themselves when I was criticising the sources as unreliable. To be as clear as possible: the source, as in the authors, are unreliable and fringe. The publishers themselves may or may not be reliable. If you have any further concerns, please bring them to the article talk page or to one of the noticeboards if you want others to be involved. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B157:DD6E:4C8B:58B5:234B:46B1: I don't see anything out of the ordinary on that article, as there is no prohibition on removing relatively large amounts of content. Here are some other observations:

1. No one WP:OWNS any article.
2. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that works pretty well.
3. WP:FALSEBALANCE is to be avoided.
4. This topic is subject to discretionary sanctions - MrX 🖋 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert archive bot?

You claimed in your edit summary that I reverted an archive bot? Please show me the diff where I did such a deed. I have no recollection of doing such, Also the hat/hab in the DJT talk page is a misuse of the template.

If I don't like the drift of a conversation then I can hat or cot it. That's how I see it. It appears to me to be tantamount to censorship. Rather than revert a WP:IDONTLIKEIT conversation, simply hat or cot it.

While I agree that the whole discussion never should have been in the first place. It is left with the last word being incorrect. Fox is and is not a reliable source. Fox can be a RS when the subject is not political. Fox was conceived by Roger Ailes during the Nixon administration as GOP TV, When Murdoch bought it, he had his chance to achieve his goal. I've read WP help on RS and it does state that some sources can be both reliable and not reliable depending on subject matter.Oldperson (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: [24]. My guess is that you probably experienced an edit conflict and ignored it. I had already hatted to discussion, and then you added to it. You're not supposed to do that and you're also not supposed to use article talk page for discussion about anything other than edits to the article. - MrX 🖋 02:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

probably experienced an edit conflict and ignored it. Edit conflict unlikely 29 minutes after the bot edit that was reverted. More likely is that you were the victim of the Random Reversal Poltergeist (my term), a known and apparently unfixable system bug that can reverse previous edits. Unfixable because it's completely random and impossible for the developers to reproduce at will.

We can say that we're not responsible for what the system decides to do to us, but with awareness of the problem one can learn to look at number of bytes added/subtracted to see if it seems reasonable for the edit they performed. In that case, 1,124 bytes were added for a brief comment that came to 247 bytes. One can also take a quick look at the diff of their edit, which in your case shows the James Comey thread (which had previously been removed by the archive bot) being added in addition to your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)