Hello, MrX! You have undone some of my editions on the article Ark of the Covenant. You commented that the source is unreliable. I would like to learn why the source is unreliable and how to identify whether a source is reliable. Bruce Chen 0010334 ( talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Your edit was largely based on the work of Ron Wyatt. His work is widely regarded as pseudoarcheology. If you wish to include such content, then it would have to be from a reliable source such as a book from a reputable publisher, a scientific journal, or a reputable news source. You can click on this link to learn what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.- Mr X 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Got it. Thanks a lot! : ) Bruce Chen 0010334 ( talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There's a comment at Category talk:Conservative Party (UK) people that you might be interested in - also at Talk:Tracey Emin. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I just had a go around with an editor who was trying to shoehorn another living person into that category.- Mr X 00:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The entries for water ionizer are wrong. Blantantly. The science and research is extensive. Please justify this maility to me. Also, it is not pseodoscience. The eitor may sell water filters or ro. Wikipedia is losing validity. Ionization first began in the late 1800s in Rusia. In the 50s Japan took it on. Why is there no coverage of this extensive history and research?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueWaterSource ( talk • contribs) 08:16, October 20, 2014‎

Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~~~~ (see WP:TPG)- Mr X 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I've amended my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves to add additional detail and some links. I'm really under the gun at work and this RfC came up unexpectedly so I'm pressed for time to do proper strikethroughs, etc. Bbb23 had a good suggestion, that I notify anyone who's added an endorsement, so you can decide if you think you need to re-sign or remove your endorsement or make a different response. Msnicki ( talk) 22:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with your revised statement and the second to last paragraphs sums it up nicely.- Mr X 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Apologies that including the quote from ANI made it difficult to tell how to respond to my remarks. But you've inadvertently pasted your comment into the middle of mine. Could you be so kind as to move it to the end? Many thanks. Msnicki ( talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I fixed it. When you quote someone, it may be a good idea to leave their signature out of the quote to avoid confusion. You can also use template:tq.- Mr X 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Guilty. I'm just really, really pressed for time. Oof! Msnicki ( talk) 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There is an additional diff that I would like DangerousPanda to reflect upon. In the interest of keeping the conversation more focussed, I was thinking it might be better for you to remain the sole spokesperson in the dialog you initiated and to present the diff. However, if you prefer that I do so, I can.

The diff is as follows: Last year, the following discussion of a block of PumpkinSky was held and closed. Subsequently, DangerousPanda commented there was "no consensus that the block was unwarranted", which I don't think is an accurate assessment of the conversation. I appreciate that it is difficult to read criticism of one's behaviour, and I believe DangerousPanda has the best intentions for Wikipedia in mind. Nonetheless, I hope that the editor can bear in mind, while reflecting upon the feedback of others, the possibility that any actions undertaken may not have resulted in a positive outcome, which I think should help with understanding critical comments. isaacl ( talk) 12:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Isaacl: If nothing else, the RFC/U was rather consistent that only activities post my extensive, self-imposed break should be discussed. I appreciate the discussion around Pumpkin Sky, however, you're posting 1/90th of the entire discussion which means that specific link is taken well out-of-context, and has been addressed and clarified a dozen times since then. I have gone out of my way to make peace with Pumpkin Sky, and I am fully aware that my attempts have been appreciated by many members of this project the panda ₯’ 13:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Isaacl. Thank you for the suggestion. Obviously DangerousPanda is aware of the concerns surrounding his interactions with PumpkinSky as they are well documented. While I think they are highly relevant to the discussion that I started, the examples that I chose were more recent because they establish that the self-imposed admin break was not all that effective.- Mr X 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

My concern was not regarding the specific interaction with PumpkinSky, but with the disparity between the views expressed in the discussion I referred to, and DangerousPanda's summary of its consensus. This particular example has stuck out in my mind because the discussion was relatively quiet, even-handed, and unanimous. The conversation on DangerousPanda's talk page has focused so far on the language used; the issue I'd like to raise is taking some time to absorb any feedback given and not being too hasty in making assumptions. I am open to your suggestions regarding the best way to approach this. isaacl ( talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I understand, and I agree with your more accurate description of the situation. I think you would be in a better position to discuss it with him directly though, since I was not involved and only peripherally aware of it when it was happening.- Mr X 23:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The Topsy (elephant) the elephant page has been edited to minimize "anti-Edison" bias. I thought I'd let you know because of a friend of mine has a student writing a paper on PT Barnum circus elephants and I don't want to go through the nightmare of trying to wrest a page away from Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Actually, stopped editing because of that.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a problem with the recent edits. Do you?- Mr X 13:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Where a talk page post is clearly and specifically aimed at an editor and makes unsubstantiated claims about an editor personally, it is a "personal attack." It was about the editor, and not in any way about improving the BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for stopping by Collect. There are degrees of what you might consider a personal attacks, ranging from a snide remark about the quality of an edit, all the way up to calling someone a tedious c**t. Vanamonde93's comment falls on the milder end of the spectrum. CFredkin, fresh off his fourth edit warring block took immediately to reverting content across multiple articles and edit warring on a least one other. Interesting that you would revert Vanamonde93's comment a second time after recently coming off your seventh block for edit warring. - Mr X 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Congrats on showing how you regard your own user talk page. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Collect, I am well aware of TPG. The reason I posted there was not because I wished to look at CFredkin's conduct in general, but because they were citing a guideline (BLPREQUESTRESTORE) on that page while refusing to follow it on another, and this behavior was very relevant to the page at hand. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

No matter what you think of another editor, deal strictly with their edits and the contents of their posts, and not with personal claims that they must work for the subject etc. If you wish to make a charge of sockpuppetry, then file such a claim at WP:SPI. If you wish to assert that an editor has violated Wikipedia policies, then file a notice at WP:AN/I. Article talk pages are not a proper venue for such charges. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Start here. I've done everything I can here and once again achieved nothing. A high school teacher once told me I suffered from overunderdoggerism. Nothing's changed, I guess, except that I've gotten better at accepting that there are some things and people I cannot change and that I am happier thinking about those I can. Good luck. Msnicki ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It's probably best to drop it for now. I don't think you're going to get an apology or what you would consider a satisfactory explanation. Admins are almost never sanctioned for a single incident, unless it involves wheel warring or egregious conduct. My concerns are about DP's overall conduct as an admin, of which this incident is but a part. Hopefully something good will come of the ongoing discussion. Best wishes. - Mr X 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed, as you already know. I knew from the beginning this wasn't the sort of person who makes apologies, nor did I ever think there was any way to explain this satisfactorily. These were a bunch of poor choices and he got a poor outcome. It is what it is. What I had hoped is that I might someday have gotten to that part, the choices and outcome, not to get an apology or explanation, but an acknowledgment that he had other choices that likely would have produced a better outcome and that he should open to civil discussion along the way. The guidelines and several other editors tried to offer advice during the incident. He rejected all of it. But I got nowhere. If I can be helpful as a witness in the future, I'll stand up again, but I'd be surprised if it's a different outcome. Admins do not sanction other admins. An adminship is too precious to risk. Msnicki ( talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. ReportTalk ( talk) 11:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you.- Mr X

I suggest you self-revert. I would point out that a single revert is certainly acceptable - but saying that a "reliably sourced contentious claim" is present is clearly wrong. The "anti-gay" wording is specifically sourced as opinion to "EqualityMatters.org" and not to any reliable source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Whatever happened to the principle of keeping existing content until there is consensus to change it? There is an ongoing RfC. Can't you wait for that to finish? I'm pretty sure that I've seen you make the similar assertions on multiple other articles. I will respond to the rest of your comments on the article talk page.- Mr X 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Collect: I'm not sure if you noticed, but I provided a list of 13 reliable sources that support the "anti-gay groups" wording, with many more available. I assume that you will be changing your !vote accordingly.- Mr X 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Nope. The term is contentious, and the sources furnished cite the wording as being from one group - making it the opinion of that group, and not a "fact" to be given in Wikipedia's voice. Collect ( talk) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You may want to check the sources that I provided again. Most of them do not attribute the term to any group but actually use it in their own voice just as we should.- Mr X 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I did. They don't. Note that headlines are not part of any "reliable source." Collect ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you're mistaken, but I'm more concerned with this policy about headlines not being part of any reliable source. Not only does that seem really odd, but I looked at WP:RS and could not find any mention of it. Could you please provide a link to the relevant policy that dictates that headlines are not part of any reliable source? Thanks! - Mr X 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Headlines are written by headline writers - not by the journalists responsible for the article content. I suggest you read the discussions at RS/N and at talk for WP:RS on that. The exception is where the headline itself is notable ("Dewey Defeats Truman" is the general example noted) but using the headline often misrepresents the actual content of the source. If we use a source, we use what the journalist wrote - not what the headline writer wrote. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

A link would have been helpful, but after searching myself, I do concede that there have been meta discussions that suggest some level of consensus for avoiding headlines. It would be immensely helpful if that were recorded on the policy page. Of course this only disqualifies a couple of the sources that I listed on the article talk page, and there are literally hundreds more available. I haven't seen any independent sources that refer to the groups as "social conservative Christian organizations" in in the context of Winshape.- Mr X 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, there was an extensive, recent discussion and RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources on amending the guideline to prohibit headlines as reliable sources. You can find the discussion here. As you can see, consensus held that while "headlines should, at the very least, be treated cautiously and taken 'with a pinch of salt'", the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." It's really weird that Collect failed to mention that discussion, and that he's incorrectly asserting that "headlines are not part of any 'reliable source'."

Now, I'm sure Collect isn't being intentionally dishonest. I'm sure he's not purposefully misrepresenting a clear, unambiguous policy consensus to try to win a content dispute. I'm sure he's not trying to game the system to exclude properly sourced material which happens to be critical of a politically conservative agenda item. I suspect he simply forgot about the existence of this discussion, and its clear consensus that headlines may not be prohibited as reliable sources—even though the discussion happened a month or so ago and he participated heavily in it. Memories are funny like that.

Anyhow, you should know that there is no consensus prohibiting the use of headlines as reliable sources—quite the opposite. And on a more abstract level, you should know that when someone makes dubious assertions without providing any supporting links or evidence, a la Collect here, one should immediately be skeptical. MastCell  ^Talk 00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually -- the exception discussed at the policy talk page was where the headline per se was the item of interest -- AS I MENTIONED ABOVE. Your snark about being "intentionally dishonest" here is --- pure snark. The discussion did, in fact, have a consensus that the headline is not part of a source as it is not written by the reporter as a rule. As an admin, you should be aware of how easy it is to make accusations which are not only inapt but blatantly inapt. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you, MastCell, for that very helpful information. I can't help but feel that I've been a victim of manipulation here. Collect confidently stated "Note that headlines are not part of any "reliable source." which is very different from "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." I wonder what is more likely; that Collect forgot a two-month-old discussion in which he made more than 20 comments, or that he was intentionally trying to deceive me to gain advantage in a content dispute. We may never know...- Mr X 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

And again Headlines are NOT part of a news article - they exist independent of the news article, and you might take note of the primary demurrer on that point - and I rather think you should quote the full close which did not state that headlines are part of a news article. Cheers. Snarkum in unum, snarkum in omnibus. Collect ( talk) 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Collect: You asserted to MrX that headlines are not reliable sources. You knew, or should have known, that your assertion was false. You knew, or should have known, that there is not a consensus for any sort of outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources. Yet you made this false claim anyway. I'm formally requesting an explanation for this behavior from you. MastCell  ^Talk 04:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

(od) Please READ before making anything of yourself. I stated that "headlines are not part of any reliable source" and the discussion was clear that headlines are, indeed, not a part of the reliable source. When used, they stand on their own as the headline. You strange insistence on saying this is "false" is unbecoming of any admin. That you consider this a "behavior issue" is unfortunate, but you have been heavily involved with me for an extended period. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

As an editor that recently edit Greg Orman, could you please weigh in at Talk:Greg_Orman#UNDUE. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

OK.- Mr X 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, NE Ent 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Acknowledged. I will post a statement shortly.- Mr X 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

If it takes several days of sleep to recharge your batteries after a vacation, what sort of vacation was it, do you suppose? Msnicki ( talk) 04:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I see DP has finally made a statement at the RFAR. I have no comment as to the veracity of his reasons for the long delay except to say that Wikipedia is not compulsory. An editor's sudden lengthy absence should never prevent vital processes like arbitration from progressing.- Mr X 12:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

There'll be a drama-filled Arb case now, and ... it's all because of you!

(Funny!) :) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Personally, I was tempted to thank him for that edit. Msnicki ( talk) 00:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I guess I'm on the wrong side now, whatever that means. Arbcom was not awaiting my discussion with DP (unless Arbom=Dennis Brown). They were waiting for DP's statement, which was apparently delayed by a vacation, in laws, hospital visits, internet connection issues, and something involving a kevlar vest.- Mr X 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery reply

[1] NE Ent 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you.- Mr X 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

See the latest commentary on the talk-page and recent edits to the lead. I would like to know your input if you have any. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

OK, I will, later.- Mr X 13:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you, but 2014 Ferguson unrest seems a cut-and-dried case of disruptive editing, and I don't know what to do at this point. Must I learn ANI process to stop this person? ‑‑ Mandruss  ☎ 20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not fully up to speed on the situation but I will try to join the discussion in a couple of hours.- Mr X 20:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

WikiProject Human rights Dear MrX/Archive, We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Human rights, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the Human rights. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Thank you!

Hmlarson ( talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invitation. I will look into it.- Mr X 00:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I hope you'll also consider adding a comment to the deletion discussions mentioned above. Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I have opened a discussion. A comment from you would be appreciated there. Thanks. Epicgenius ( talk) 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you please let me know why in this edit you removed the wikilinks I added to anode and cathode? 173.49.91.231 ( talk) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ 173.49.91.231: Because you added "which contains bleach" which is unsourced. Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE.- Mr X 16:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is related to the wikilinks I added or why that would necessitate their removal. 173.49.91.231 ( talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I apologize for that. I should not have removed the wikilinks. Thank you for fixing it and for adding a source.- Mr X 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

OK thanks. I'm still trying to get the hang of things around here. 173.49.91.231 ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi MrX, I just received a link to this "project page" about an artist friend who died in 2009. I don't understand what a "project page" is - this was created by a graduate student in textiles whose professor was one of Ms. Lamb's mentors, and from even a cursory reading of it, I can see problems with lack of attribution and dependence on primary sources (e.g., interview with sister). I'd like to do what I can to make this into a real Wikipedia article, but since I don't understand the relationship, if any, between "project page" and real article, I'm stymied. Help!! Ailemadrah ( talk) 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Longtime page watcher here... I just moved the biography to article space: Mary Catherine Lamb. It was incorrectly made into Wikipedia space. I also brushed it up a little in terms of formatting. It looks like some interviews were used as references, but as they are not published, they cannot be part of the biography, so it will need to be trimmed of that information. Such interviews could of course be the sources for magazine articles or similar. Binksternet ( talk) 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Ailemadrah:I see that Bink has stepped in to help in my absence, for which I thank him. Let me know if you still need any assistance.- Mr X 17:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, yes, I do - thanks for the offer! Mary Catherine Lamb had a lot of friends, all of whom are on an email list (myself included) and have been alerted to the existence of the Wikipedia article about her, and now they're wanting to add all kinds of details about her that are mostly unverifiable. I've contacted the creator of the article and have promised to help edit it to conform to Wikipedia standards of verifiability - however, because of the holidays, the editing won't begin until after the first of the year. I've been hesitant to tell all these excited folks that the article won't stand as written, because they won't understand and will inundate me with emails. Will a delay of a few weeks, and perhaps the addition of yet more unverifiable material, flag the article for deletion? In other words, do we have time to make the necessary changes without endangering the current status of the article and without my having to cause a big fuss among Ms. Lamb's friends? Thanks, as always. Ailemadrah ( talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The article is not really in jeopardy of being deleted since there seem to be sufficient reliable sources. The notes and references sections should eventually be combined and the unreliable sources removed (as well as the related content). I will put some maintenance tags on the article which should also help. Have a nice holiday!- Mr X 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Many thanks, and have a lovely holiday yourself! Ailemadrah ( talk) 16:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

For your assistance with the arbcom case. NE Ent 23:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I was glad to help. Thank you as well.- Mr X 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making it unreviewed, I just checked tools.wmflabs and found it that i have patrolled it. I was just tagging the article but forgot to shut off the patrolled button of Twinkle. It was my mistake and it is rare that i patrol articles on wikipedia unless they are meeting CSD. Thanks for letting me know. Owais Khursheed ( Talk to me) 06:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

No problem. You didn't do anything wrong.- Mr X 21:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jad El Hage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I would be interested to know what you consider to be an assertion of importance in that article. It seems like fairly ordinary CV to me.- Mr X 21:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks MrX, well for example there was "placed him in the forefront of the new generation of Arab poets; the godfather of modern Arab poetry, Yusuf al-Khal, considered Jad “unrivalled by his generation”". Ϣere SpielChequers 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I should have read it more carefully. Thanks for the explanation.- Mr X 21:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. When I spot articles like this where the assertion of importance is four or five paragraphs in I try to cut the newbie a bit more slack as they are obviously genuine newbies and unfamiliar with our deletion processes. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello there MrX! I'm noticing that you comment out Technical 13's (Original by Equazcion) OneClickArchiver ( Original) script when you are not using it. I've added a new feature today that allows you to toggle the script on or off directly from talk pages! The best part is that it will remember what the last state was! Please see the documentation for more details and happy archiving! — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Technical 13. That's great news! Thanks for letting me know and for your work on the script.- Mr X 00:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Mr X,

I put in the /info/en/?search=International_Women%27s_Club page since there was not one. I was trying to set up a list whereby we could start to get all the organizations a stub/article. I didn't think you guys would want me creating 70 empty stubs all at once so I included the links as a starting point. This is *not* a link farm page, but an attempt to get more information about these organizations into the wiki.

There is not one single IWC webpage that umbrellas all of the IWC clubs of the world, therefore it really is necessary to treat each one as an autonomous organization. Can you recommend the best way to get this info into the wiki and expand upon it? Should I go ahead and create stubs for each one? I was afraid if I just started doing it you you all might think I was a spammer or something.

KieraJewel ( talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi KieraJewel. I left a message on your talk page about why you can't create an article with a lot of external links. Generally, list articles should consist of entries with links to other Wikipedia articles. Here is an example: List of women writers. You can create a list of International Women's Clubs, provide that such a list (collectively) is notable (see WP:LISTN) and of course you would need at least a few reliable sources to establish that the list itself is notable. I hope that makes sense.- Mr X 21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi MrX, Sorry to be a bother, I am working to bring the page into compliance, please dont delete yet! Each club is an individual entity. Should I go ahead and make stubs for the individual clubs and link to those? I do not control them or know that much about them, but was planning to email all the site contacts and invite them to put information about themselves up. I cannot do it since I am only familiar with the one where I live.

I don't plan to delete it, but someone else might. Would you like me to move it into draft space so that you can work on without it being deleted?

Some of the clubs may already have articles, so you could just wikilink to them. You can create stubs for the other ones if there are notable. A good rule of thumb for determining notability is to do a Google news or book search and see if at least three independent articles or books are listed in the search results. If so, you can use them as sources (see WP:RS and WP:CITE). I hope that helps.- Mr X 22:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

MrX, Thanks, I will look into the draft - someone already set it for speedy deletion on the individual stub i made - geez you guys work fast lol! Ok for references, would this http://leipzig.usconsulate.gov/clubs.html count as one? an official gov website that links to it? Or a local newspaper article link? I see there are lots of "clubs" listed in the wiki and I think the IWCs are as important as any of those others I have seen. I am just not sure how best to make sure others see it that way. KieraJewel ( talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

That link will not work as a source for establishing notability. You would need something more substantial, that discusses the club in more detail. Newspaper articles are good, as long as they are not just trivial mentions. A government website that discusses the club could be used, as long as it's not merely a directory listing or a link.- Mr X 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you are seeing. That is my first revert regarding that. I removed it earlier, but that was not a revert. Perhaps you could be a little more clear. Arzel ( talk) 01:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, that section which I removed initially, had been there for far more than 7 days. My first edit was a regular edit, my next edit was my one revert. Arzel ( talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Reverting means reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. 1st Revert, 2nd revert. The fact that the material was originally in the article for more than seven days is irrelevant.- Mr X 01:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually - changing long-established language is not a "revert" in Wikipedia usage. WP:REV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your definition would appear to assert that BRD edits are "reverts" at the first edit. They aren't. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

(ec)That seems quite arbitrary. How is one to know for sure that the removal of something won't return the article to some previous state without an extrememly difficult and time-consuming edit check? I made sure that during my revert that I had not reverted anything recent. What is your goal here? Arzel ( talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Collect, you are just about the last person that should be lecturing me on the definition of reverts as you routinely edit war, demonstrating that you either do not understand policy or you simply think that you can game the system by wikilawyering. A revert means undoing the actions of other editors See also WP:REVERT.- Mr X 14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Arzel, when you remove an entire section, it's reasonable to assert that that is reverting someone's addition to the encyclopedia. As you have a history of removing good content, adding very little content, and edit warring to preserve your versions, I believe you already know this.- Mr X 14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Um For a revert to count as a revert under the restriction it has to be of a "specific edit" which only the second of these was. Unless someone can point to a single edit where the section Arzel removed was added (I don't want to search through the page history right now) then their first reported revert isn't one per the restriction seems to indicate my opinion is not the only one with this position. BTW, your claim that I routinely edit war is not borne out by facts - the "block history" is misleading as it includes improper blocks. Collect ( talk) 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

It's already been done by Scoobydunk. I, and at least one other editor has warned you about edit warring in the past few days. Would it be helpful if I presented you with a list of repeated reverts that you have made since your last edit warring block? I would be happy to oblige.- Mr X 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I would commend you to abide by WP:AGF before using an essay to assail any editor. Cheers and Happy New Year! Collect ( talk) 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Good advice for us all Collect. Happy New Year to you too! Cheers.- Mr X 19:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Good content is in the eye of the beholder. I remove bad content and BLP violations. Your assumption is that removal of bad content is worse than the addition of bad content. Your personal attack is unwarranted, I have been very civil to you, something you have asked of me. I expect to be treated the same. Do you seriously believe this is good content? Arzel ( talk) 14:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Bad content is vandalism, false information, spam, etc. You remove content that you disagree with. That's OK, but claiming WP:BLP violations in the face of solid sourcing, is not a get out of jail free card. Yes, I do believe the Krugman content is good content, as do other well-respected sources and other Wikipedia editors. If Breitbart had merely repeated the story, that would be bad. In fact, they added inflammatory commentary and have a history of attacking Krugman, and a history of erroneous reporting.- Mr X 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I saw you removed the failed verification tag about the time when AirAsia first announce the missing aircraft. However, when I checked both the Facebook and Twitter links, I still see the posting time were 10:41 am and 10:47 am respectively, adjusted to UTC+7. And I don't see there are edited log in both posts. That's why I added the tag on the time.

Would you mind to confirm if what you see are different? — Peter why 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I guess I assumed that the post times are local times, but I guess that's not the case. It seems that the FB post occurred at 3:41UTC, four hours later that listed in the article. I will update the article.- Mr X 16:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and happy new year — Peter why 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply