Dear Mr. X, what would it take for you to consider the Orlando Attack an Islamic Terror attack? Why is it that you can use Logic and Common Sense as a valid reason for your edits, ("Logic of course tells us that a person cannot attack an entire community, and "LGBTQ+ community" is an abstract concept anyway."), but that same logic and common sense can't be used when when a Young Muslim Male shoots 50 gay people and pledges allegiance to ISIS, and then CNN, CBS, and the FBI pick up on it. Also, if you are keen on removing the Orlando attack from the list, what other "debatable" attacks should be removed from the list?
I guess it's the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic. "Attacking the LGBTQ+ community" is simply a sensationalistic way of saying the more encyclopedic "some LGBTQ+ people were attacked". It's poor writing that doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. For us to say that the Orlando nightclub shooting was an Islamist Terrorist attack, we (editors) would have to make that conclusion ourselves by applying original research. This, one of our strictest policies says:
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.""
That means, unless sources explicitly state that he shooting was an "Islamist terrorist attack" or words incontrovertibly equivalent that, we can't include it in an article. All content must be verifiable in reliable sources, without reading between the lines. Yes, other attacks that fail to meet the same verifiability criteria should be removed as well. - MrX 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, other attacks that fail to meet the same verifiability criteria should be removed as well" That list is about to get destroyed, because a good chunk of attacks get swept under the rug, and have limited sources to back them up. Not your or my fault, nor wikipedia's, but it is noteworthy. R00b07 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you call Breitbart a "radical right wing blog" aren't you admitting that you have a political dog in the fight, and are editing to further your political beliefs? I mean I don't particularly care for Breitbart, but that comment makes it crystal clear on what your motivations on editing that page are. Hope we can chat this out. Thanks. R00b07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. I can have an opinion about a website without having dog in the fight. There are radical left wing websites too. I personally could care less whether the shooting is called an 'Islamist terrorist attack' or 'gay lover revenge shooting', as long as it's verifiable in reliable sources. I have a vested interest is in seeing the integrity of the encyclopedia upheld, because I've put hundreds of hours into trying to improve and maintain content, and influence the governance of the project so that it can fulfill its goals. You can't say that about the editors who have only made a handful of edits, and then show up five years later to vote the moment Breitbart posts their article.- MrX 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up! I'm sure plenty of people like me were confused. R00b07 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page that was "speedy deleted"
I am unable to find any link where I can contest this or speak to someone about this
Mark Imisides
mark@drchemical.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Imisides (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You can always go to deletion review and post a request that your page be reinstated. There are instructions there on how to properly post your request to have the deletion reviewed. RickinBaltimore (talk)
Please do not tamper with my comments again. If this continues I will seek admin intervention. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate my point, there is no longer a need for the RFC due to additional sources, namely the New York Times timeline of global Islamist terror attacks where Orlando is clearly mentioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry Mr Ernie. I didn't remove your comment on purpose. All I did was add my own comment to a blank space at then end of the section. MediaWiki did not give me an edit conflict warning nor did your comment appear in that section when I was editing, so I have no idea how it happened. Please accept my heartfelt apology. No one likes to have their comments erased.- MrX 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem thanks for the explanation. My apologies for overreacting. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's OK. - MrX 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few comments over the years I'd like to get removed. Mr Ernie, unfortunately this kind of stuff happens all too frequently. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this votestacking you refer to had a substantial effect on Wikipedia content, it would be done far more often. There would be widespread use of Facebook and Twitter to tell the world about the current really important Wikipedia RfCs that everybody should go !vote on. In every politically controversial RfC, 95% of the !votes would be from these SPAs, the RfCs would become petitions, the concept of consensus would be destroyed, and we might as well hang it up and go home. Why doesn't that happen? Because it would be a waste of time. Why? Because consensus is not about numbers (or at least not enough about numbers to make such efforts worthwhile). I really don't think we need to worry about that feeble attempt to influence our content; the only real effect is to make those users look ridiculous. ―Mandruss☎ 15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends who closes the RfC. Some editors close RfCs by properly weighing arguments; some close by more-or-less counting votes; and some actually inject their own point of view into the results. I've absolutely seen RfCs closed improperly and I've seen RfC outcomes influenced by canvassing. YMMV.- MrX 15:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the world just hasn't caught on yet, and they will before long, and the project is doomed unless it learns how to deal with this before that happens. ―Mandruss☎ 15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WittyFeed, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CTO and COO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page that was "speedy deleted" almost immediately without an opportunity to contest it.
How do I contest it and get it reinstated
Mark Imisides
mark@drchemical.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Imisides (talk • contribs) 13:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Imisides, I've reviewed it and it won't be restored. Please stop wasting our time creating nonsense articles. --NeilNtalk to me 13:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Isha sharmaa, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GSS (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Orlando, Florida page, do you think it's necessary to have the sub title for the "2016 mass shooting"? Understandably, it was a horrible tragedy and major for the city, however it doesn't seem too necessary to have a sub title for it because of its length, especially when you start to compare other modern events in history to other cities, i.e. Paris, Dallas, New York City, etc.. Do you think we could just link it? --Adog104Talk to me 06:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adog104: I don't think it's necessary, but I do think it's a net positive in helping readers scan the article for information that they want. I would not be strongly opposed to removing the sub heading, and turning the hat note into a plain wikilink. I would be strongly opposed to reducing the paragraph to a single link, or in fact, reducing it at all.- MrX 12:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, I just wanted to ask just in case as oppose to just removing it. And no, I wouldn't be in favor either of reducing it at all, it's pretty small for what it could be written out as. Thank you for responding! --Adog104Talk to me 12:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand... what's your objection to including the full statement from Trump? I don't think it's reasonable to include only part of the sentence. You didn't even bother to weigh in at the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Trump's campaign. Here is a word-for-word transcript of the relevant part of his speech:
“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”[1]
As indicated in the article Talk, the quote you reference above is from a different statement than the one be quoted in the disputed content. In any case, my question is, what's your objection to including the qualifier ("in many cases") from Trump's statement?CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are unnecessary, self-serving weasel words. Since the material in dispute does not use the word "all" and because it does use the word "characterizations", it is an accurate, fair summarization of Trump's articulated view on illegal immigration. - MrX 23:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the inclusion of the term "characterizations" is relevant. You can "characterize many" or "characterize all". In this case, Trump clearly "characterized many". If you leave out "many" it implies that he "characterized all". The use of the term "many" is essential to understand the distinction.CFredkin (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word "some" is implied in the sentence that you're disputing. This all comes down to editorial discretion and semantics. I have nothing more I can say about this without repeating myself, and I'm sure neither of us want that.- MrX 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
STOP: I'm innocent of any of your savage personal attacks.[edit]
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. W124l29 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please illustrate with a diff and by citing policy how exactly I violated WP:NPA. Thank you.- MrX 21:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being as that you refuse to stop, I shall begin to seek conflict resolution with you. As I've stated to you before: you have been obtusely insulting, combative, not I, and have harassed me, all-the-while not providing any valid or logical explanations in any comment of yours nor edit summary. That isn't welcome here, I'd hope, and I am sure that whomever decides as to what happens shall see your behavior before my, from my perspective, valid edits & attempts at civil conversation. I don't believe that I need to cite each & every rule you've broken. W124l29 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) No, you don't need to cite any rules, W124l29, but you do need to cite evidence for what you say, preferably in the form of diffs. If you don't know how to make diffs, you can give the page and timestamp for the posts where you claim mr X attacked you. Accusations of personal attacks that lack evidence are themselves personal attacks. And I don't see mr X 'refusing to stop', either: he simply asked where these supposed attacks are. Please either tell him or stop fuming on this page, and don't make silly threats about "conflict resolution". Bishonen | talk 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
May I ask why you are communicating with me in such a pithy manner? I am not making any "silly threats". I am absolutely going to begin to seek conflict resolution. Your opinion in that regard is, well, not quite appreciated. In the meantime, and I fully intend to compile a list of his personal attacks, though I do not live at my personal computer and so cannot respond on command, I found our favorite person on a news media website after looking into why he might not consider them a "reliable source"--curious, or rather ironic from my perspective, considering his obvious political bias and deference to the Rules on Wikipdia by way of his edits in addition to those past & current complaints made against him on this very Talk page. By the way, I do see that you're an administrator, so you can spare holding that over my head, but my question to you remains: may I ask why you are communicating with me in such a pithy manner? I find it quite rude, albeit not on the same level as those with whom I've communicated on the Talk page in question. W124l29 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
W124l29, if you have time to continue arguing at Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, you have time to come up with a couple of diffs so admins like myself and Bishonen can see if your "you may be blocked from editing" is justified. As Bish alludes to, making false accusations can also result in blocks. --NeilNtalk to me 23:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a pause on this and get back to you later; however, I do not know how to create "diffs", and would appreciate some help. All comments in question are on my Talk page and on the Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers in question. No good faith was ever assumed, which goes to the why, which has led me to read further into his edits & communications on Wikipedia. I am accusing this user of WP:TENDENTIOUS, in addition to personal attacks via repeat underhanded insults despite my efforts to be civil. I very much appreciate your refreshing candor and better civility, @NeilN:. W124l29 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pithy? Thank you, W124l29, I was aiming for pith. It's part of my job as an admin to intervene if I should see aggressive claims without evidence on a user takpage. Please refrain from posting on this page again until and unless you have compiled the list of evidence of personal attacks of which you speak. In the meantime, if you have further complaints about my way of addressing you, please take them to my page, but kindly avoid loose unevidenced accusations against anybody there, too. The best guide to creating diffs is Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. But as I suggested above, you can manage without diffs, too. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
W124l29, please read WP:DIFF. And this is your last warning. Any more accusations against any editor of personal attacks or "repeat underhanded insults" without providing diffs will result in a block for you. This isn't the first time you've done this. [2] --NeilNtalk to me 23:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How you could manage to warn me but no other person involved, only for my repeatedly requesting that they follow Wikipedia policy, is beyond my comprehension. Lest I digress: I will attempt to respond more comprehensively to you here and within the below linked ANI within the next twenty-four hours, and until then, am requesting that this Talk section be protected from blanking per relationship to an ongoing dispute in which you have made yourselves involved—as Wikipedia administrators. I trust that you would tell me if you knew, in good interest. I would also like to know whether there is any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or suggested behavior anywhere to your knowledge for an administrator to remove him- or herself from moderation of a dispute where there might be a conflict of interest due to conflicting parties being established relationships as editors to such an administrator. All statements which I have made were grounded in objective interest, all claims by myself of hostile behavior from others were warranted, and all subsequent counter-claims by others of bias and/or hostility from me are unwarranted. I stand to all statements made on Wikipedia, and if that so warrants some sort of administrative penalty, then I accept such penalty, but only with well-formed explanation free of subjective bias. Frankly, I'm flattered that I've offended so many people, granted that you're established editors. I ask that any decision made be made not in absentia, and that I have ample opportunity to respond with consideration to the reality that not everyone can log onto Wikipedia every day or made-to-order. Thank you very much for your consideration, and your patient kindness is much appreciated. Warmest regards, W124l29 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
W124l29, it's quite easy. It's because you have provided no diffs. --NeilNtalk to me 12:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah..hmmm...about your accusation of me creating a hate page and such, I need to see some proof.
That's right, you've got none since it doesn't exist and you just falsely accused me.
Have a great day. Norum 11:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All film series plot summaries, cast lists, and box office revenue are copied from original Articles. So Please Remove that articles from speedy deletion. See Below for More Details.
That is not an appropriate way to create an article (see WP:COPYPASTE). Feel free to comment at the AfD will evidence of notability of the series as an independent topic.- MrX 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I have possibly universally agreed with the many edits I've seen you make to many articles in the past, I undid your removal of the mention of reception DWS got when she spoke to the Florida delegation at the convention in Philly. Let me provide some context. She was met by a loud chorus of boos from the moment she opened her mouth until she left. This is why I think it's particularly important. Florida has 246 delegates. Of those, only 75 were Bernie's. He got only 28% of the votes in the primary. Of the Superdelegates, Hillary got 28 and Bernie two, with two uncommitted as of the last figures I can find. DWS should have been in very friendly company, given that it's her own state and she's still the DNC chair addressing her own state's delegation where this year she has met with her first ever primary opposition. She was staff to Peter Deutsch before being elected long ago to the state legislature. She's survived two congressional redistrictings. The reception yesterday (I watched it) was I think a bellweather. It's not just Bernie, and it's not just recentism. She's become a bipartisan and intramural lightning rod. Even the Wikileaks communications were misunderstood, in her favor. There wasn't an Alaskan anti-Hillary "counter event" (also characterized by the DNC as an "insurgency"), even though Bernie got 81% of the caucus votes there, but rather an anti-DWS demonstration. At least 20 delegates walked out on her keynote speech in Anchorage in May and the counter-event was paid for by attendees themselves, and it included many prominent political actors from that state. Though rapidly assembled, it probably drew more than the state convention, even though guests are welcomed at the latter. Many of her behaviors and positions have disturbed her constituents, from her support for fracking in the Everglades, the siting of for-profit prisons and the industry itself, and her advocacy for the TPP and the Payday Loan industry, for example. I haven't posted this to the TALK page since I don't think anyone but yourself objected to the reception's inclusion. Feel free to disagree, of course, or to make an alternate case. Thanks much for all your contributions. Activist (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Activist. I'm fine with that. I don't have strong views on the content in question and I recognize that there are people who know the material much better than I do. My involvement in the article is mainly to keep an eye on material inserted by (what I assume are) hardcore Bernie supporters using specious arguments like WP:NOTCENSORED to add questionable material. As far as the subject of the article is concerned, I think I'm about as neutral as I can be, even if I am her.- MrX 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate that. Activist (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, what sort of verification problem are you having with the following statement? ABC News has identified a person who requested a moment of silence for Micah Johnson. Keneally, Megan. "Trump: 'Some People' Called for a Moment of Silence for the Dallas Gunman", ABC News (July 13, 2016): "So far, ABC News has been able to find one person who posted on two of his social media accounts calling for a moment of silence."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I searched the source for the quote yesterday I didn't see it but I do now. However, ABC News seems to be saying that a single persons tweet was likely not what Trump was referring to when he said that some people have asked for a moment of silence for the shooter. I don't think we should use a cherry picked example to refute the widely-held view that Trump made a dubious claim. If you believe strongly that this material belongs in the article, you make your case on the article talk page.- MrX 12:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to above, I just spent a couple minutes trying to figure out what was going on in this diff: [3]. To me it looks like an accidental rollback from editing an older revision. ~Awilley (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how that happened since I didn't edit the infobox. I guess I must have edited an older version, although I don't know how I missed the warning. I will fix it now.- MrX 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert at the Donald Trump article, as you have clearly exceeded 1RR by separately undoing edits of other editors that are currently under dispute. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be specific? I was earnestly trying to avoid removing any edit more than once, but I accidentally reverted my own edits from this morning and experienced triple edit conflicts when doing so.- MrX 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert myself on 4, although it was technically a caption, so it's not quite a revert in the first place. 5, as I explained in my ed sum, was reinstating my own edit from this morning. In other words I made an edit, I reverted the edit, and I restored the edit. As far as I know, 1RR does not apply to reverting ones own edits.- MrX 21:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your revert, but you have deleted <ref name=Scots> that documented the Trump campaign's clear change of its initial proposal. Footnote 426 (<ref name=Scots />) is now a red error message. Please fix (without reverting) thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I restored the footnote. I will restore both of your edits now.- MrX 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff showing all changes from just before my first edit to present. You added the <ref name=Scots />, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't defined elsewhere. I don't think I removed it, but it you can find where I did, I will gladly restore it.- MrX 21:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Nikola Tesla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Waggie (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, please make sure you report them to the correct noticebaord then, if you haven't already. Waggie (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You once mentioned that Page Curation has its shortcomings. While I can't disagree (I was part of the development - at least on behalf of the communityt), I still firmly believe that rthe only way to control the quality of NPP isto get people singing from the same hymn sheet. Since my talks with the WMF in Italy, there are strong chances now that the page Curation/New Page Feed system will now get the attention it requires. Now is the time to let me have a list of what you think should be improved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. I will start compiling some ideas for improvements. Is there a venue where these ideas can best be discussed?- MrX 11:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why it would not be discussed openly, so others can participate? I'm interested in a broader collaboration and I hope you are as well.- MrX 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Kudpung I'm going to assume from your silence that this will not be a community effort. Good luck. - MrX 00:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. It's best to ping me if you want an anwser noticed, you'll see then that you get a very prompt response. I have 22,507 pages on my watchtch lisy and yours is not one of the. Why do people on Wkpedia always assume the worst? If you don't want me to have a look at your list before I tell you the best place to post it, I'm sorry if you don't want my help. The page for colaboration is at WT:Page Curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung I didn't realize that I needed to ping you when responded to you seven minutes after your own response, and of course I had no knowledge at all about the size of your watchlist. Now I know.
Sending you a list of what I perceive to be shortcomings in the page curation tool is not something I would be especially interested in doing. I have no idea what you would do with such a list, or what the result might be, or what further expectations you might have of me. I made a request three and half years ago for minor change in the page curation tool to eliminate annoying (and compulsory) user talk posts when unreviewing a page. The response I received from a WMF employee didn't leave me with the warm fuzzies. I'm interested in discussion that might generate ideas for improvements in the page tool, as well as improvements in the process for reviewing pages. - MrX 02:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot more problems with that very junior WMF employee who practically claimed ownership of Curation although his brief was only to report what was being reported on Wikipedia talk:Page Curation to his superiors who would then relay the bugs and requests to the engineers. He went around Wikimania 2012 being extremely rude (I mean 'really' rude with 'F' words) to hardworking volunteers and admins, was desyoped in disgrace from en.Wiki in 2013, and is no longer employed by the Foundation. As a result, New Page Feed/Page Curation which was developed by the WMF based much on my initiative and that of Scottywong, was no longer being actively supported by the Foundation and I appear to be the only person left taking any interest in NPP whatsoever - volutarily and stupidly 'holding the baby' so to speak (see the talk page and its archives) and WT:NPP and its archives. Two months ago following talks at Wikimania I was approached out of the blue by the newly constituted Foundation with a request to provide them with a 'to do' list. The 17 page document contained items that are mostly all technical enhancements and software bugs and are mainly items that were 'forgotten' during the original development, or not addressed since during the confusion of moving Bugzilla to Phabricator, and many user suggestions that have been madede ver the last three years.. They do not require mass participation of the entire Wikipedia community - indeed, if they did, nothing would get done at all. As mentioned however, your comments and suggestions would be most welcome and I will ensure that the Foundation does not miss them. That all said, I certainly do not lay claim to ownership of the NPP projects, and I can just as easily drop the baby on the floor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit you made in 2013 you apear to have concurred that there is a problem we are still trying to address today at an RfC - albeit with not much success. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your adding the notification that disciplinary sanctions apply to all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people to my talk page. I understand that this is no accusation of any wrong-doing, but is a formal requirement necessary in order to pursue disciplinary sanctions against an editor. As a neutral administrator, and by the principal of WP:Boomerang, I would ask that you or another administrator consider fulfilling this same formal requirement for the person who called you to the thread, given that user's repeated personal attacks on me. Many neutral editors have both publicly and more discreetly opposed the positions this user introduces into the text as a quick look at the Talk page confirms. (especially Talk#WOW, but also the sections on "quantitative easing", "brexit", ties to Russia, and many others). I'm pinging two other administrators (@Neutrality:, @NeilN:) who have some knowledge of the history of the page to this response, because I would like to know if it is appropriate -- with the goal of transparency -- to post the above comment (or a variant of it) to Talk:Jill Stein. Thanks for the warning and the consideration of what seems to me a fair balance in administrative actions. SashiRolls (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also alerted Snooganssnoogans. But to clarify, I do not breathe the rarefied air of the admins, nor drink of their sweet nectar.
The key to successfully editing political biographies of living people is to be very careful about adhering to our policies, use impeccable sources, seek consensus for major changes, and work collaboratively with everyone, including people with different ideological viewpoints. Good luck!- MrX 14:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any expectation that you'll revert this edit, but I'll pretend here that there's some chance of it. No one has objected to the substance of that language, so yes there is consensus. And even if 1000 editors had objected without giving any substantive reason, that never justifies a revert. See WP:Don't revert solely due to no consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The substantive reason is that many of Trump's statements have been controversial and false, not controversial and hyperbolic. Prominently saying that his many of statements have been hyperbolic undermines the well-documented fact the he frequently says things that are unambiguously false. It's a bad idea to make such a bold edit during an RfC discussing the very same material. Ironically, you cited a source from two months after his 14-month campaign started, even though you complained in the RfC about 2015 sources. An RfC which, by the way, appears to be firmly trending toward including the word false, after the closer discards the non-policy based arguments. - MrX 16:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confirmed consensus for the image you put in the Donald Trump infobox. Please revert yourself immediately. Discussion is still occurring, and there has been no close of the discussion. Your action was presumptive and inappropriate. Remember, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉✓ 18:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine, thank you. And how are you?
Please note that I didn't say there was a confirmed consensus. There is, however, a firm consensus, with substantially more editors (6) favoring the August 2016 photo than any other, including the status quo ante. The other comments are outliers dispersed among two new candidate photos and the status quo ante photo. - MrX 18:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not good enough. Consensus is about coming to agreement, not vote-counting. You've been here long enough and should already know this. And no, there is no consensus, firm, confirmed, or otherwise. You made a controversial unilateral move that was contested once already and is now contested again. You should not have done it until the discussion was officially closed. You need to self-revert. -- WV ● ✉✓ 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, but I don't a need a lecture on the fundamentals of how Wikipedia works. There are now seven editors who support the better photo. I think it's time for you to move on, and I suggest in the strongest possible terms that you desist pursuing your grudge campaign against Calibrador [6][7][8][9]. It makes you look petty and will likely result in you being blocked.- MrX 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at deflecting away from your inappropriate unilateral move and attempting to make me the villain. Regardless, I have no "grudge campaign" against Skidmore. I do, however, have a real problem with someone edit warring to keep in their own photos in an WP:OWN-like manner. He's been warned about this behavior for quite a while, not just here in the en.wikipedia, but at Commons, as well. It's an ongoing issue. -- WV ● ✉✓ 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment in the discussion on the Donald Trump talk page. I was a little confused, as you listed C first, and praised it, that is the one you are supporting, correct? If you could add the word Support at the beginning of your comment, that might make it a little more clear if it is the case, as you bolded some of the other letters as well. Calibrador (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put your comments in the middle of mine. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Jesus. I was trying to help, but I guess protocol is what's really important.- MrX 04:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't list MelanieN on purpose, and you made it look like I did list her. What's really important is not making it seem like an editor (e.g. me) said something that he didn't say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Fallon (press secretary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re [10], it occurred to me too late that I was modifying a different editor's post without sufficient reason per TPG. Should have consulted you first, feel free to put this back. ―Mandruss☎ 23:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bother draftifying this? The article is clearly just an incomplete duplicate of the article on extrinsic value (ethics). It even uses the term extrinsic value in the text. WP:CSD#A10 clearly applied. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you accept brain fart as an answer? I think I read the word entrinsic as extrinsic, and thought it might be salvageable.- MrX 22:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. 
Thank you.- MrX 21:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
