An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sahasa Simha Comics Seies. Since you had some involvement with the Sahasa Simha Comics Seies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 19:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrX, I respect your professionalism in the way you edit and treat people (not always kind, but always fair) from what I've seen. I wanted to ask your advice about a couple things.
The first is about the changes made at Talk:Joe_Biden by Snooganssnoogans. The first edit is followed 4 other similar edits and then another a few hours ago. This is looking to me more like a personal attack with deepening WP:ASPERSIONS and throw in some WP:BLUDGEON as well. WP:AGF and Civility also come to mind.
I pinged him and called him out gently in my 17:40 edit -- with no response.
Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill or should I take the next steps in the dispute resolution?
The second question is in regard to reliability of Rising_(news_show) and Hill TV. It appears that this is produced/published by The Hill and presumably under its editorial oversight. The last 3 discussions about the Hill on WP:RS/N were after Rising existed as part of thehill.com (Rising was never mentioned). The argument made by Snoogansnoogans implied that it opinion or no consensus (by referring to the hosts as cranks and comparing to Fox programming). CBS527 argues there is no consensus. The piece in context seems reliable (as a direct video interview), but as it is mainly about Times Up and not Biden so is only useful as a supporting source. There are at least 54 articles with references cited from Rising.
To me, it seems like Rising is billed as a News show and is just part of TheHill.com. I assumed it was a RS after I reviewed WP:RS/P. I would think the next step for Snoogans or CBS would be to open a RfC to remove the implied consensus.
Does that match with your understanding of RS or am I off my rocker?
As a side note, I plan to review my thoughts in the Talk:Biden pages and see if I still feel the same way with only the other sources. I am planning on changing some of my vote text (with appropriate strikethrough) to remove The Hill source and replace it with Vox and maybe another better source.
Regards and thanks for your time and advice. -- Davemoth ( talk) 03:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrX, I was just perusing the photos you've taken and uploaded on your userpage. They're really quite excellent. Kudos to you. Just added one of the to this article. Ergo Sum 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I had not noticed it till well after I posted my diffs and comments (probably as I had my edit window open same time you were posting) but in the future, if you're going to bring up 5 year old diffs about me and editorialize them so publically [2], maybe ping me. Kind of odd really since I have been pretty much absent from your arena as of late. Thank you.-- MONGO ( talk) 18:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You know this though I would imagine. -- Malerooster ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, MrX. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Political endorsements".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 09:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is all the reverts done by you just now, and I'm assuming this is a gross violation of WP:1RR. I'm basing this off of your interpretation of a "revert". Self-revert and learn to use the talk page. Is your editing the type that needs to be reported to WP:AE for review? Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Cheerio, XavierItzm ( talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
As discussed on the Joe Bide page, please self-revert. Please consult this with someone if you are still unsure about the policy. It obviously states one revert per user per 24 hours. It also states that multiple edits that revert a change count as one revert. It doesn't say that you can keep reverting all day long and everything counts as one revert. BeŻet ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
BeŻet (
talk)
20:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Situation now apparently clarified. You can make several reverts of content that has appeared before you preformed your first revert. BeŻet ( talk) 20:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you have passed 1RR on the Reade article today. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your revert of my edit to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. So far, I’ve had two editors agree with me. I didn’t realize at first that there was a template specifically for disease outbreaks, so now I’m discussing it on the template’s talk page. I’m mostly a medical contributor to Wikipedia, and I take issue with the term “Official website” being used to refer to an outbreak itself, rather than a government response. So, I’m inviting you to join the discussion. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 11:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you misplaced this on my page. In general I am not interested in your issues, but I communicate to authors, if I have the feeling something is fishy.
In any case, can you explain the meaning of this alert? Platonykiss ( talk) 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Apparently arranged by me [ [10]], its hard to now not make some joke. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I thank you to enlighten me about the true nature of this inflammation! Platonykiss ( talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I find that you are a biased editor just from your talk page. I am trying to get at least ONE article on wikipedia to be balanced. I am sure that confirmation bias will not allow you to read the article with a true editor's eye. PRETEND you are non partisan or even lean right and read GENERAL Michael Flynn's article knowing the information that is now available in the last 3 days in which people like Susan Rice, Sally Yates, and other frequent guests on CNN (a source wikipedia accepts) say UNDER OATH, from their public statements on CNN about Russia Collusion. Totally opposite. I want to be able to trust Wikipedia, but I cannot because I know that it is ran by those on the left who will not allow a balanced article on political figures. Just look through the talk page, any OPINION of bad is accepted, any showing that the article is inaccurate are not accepted even with each fact sourced. I went through the list of sources, many from years ago, that are now known to be false, and my comments were erased by someone. I did not know but now do about stealth editing. Bad for truth. I also note, no source that goes against the liberal bias is accepted. I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip. 173.172.158.168 ( talk) 03:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It's at the bottom of Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and might sound vaguely "problematic", but that's just how I write. I assure you I bear no ill will, real or imagined. Just forgot to tag you and thought you should know "it" happened again. Also, I just noticed you said "Definifinitely" two springs back. Pretty funny word, intentional or not, in a good way! InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"This" CHANGES everything. Thanks for emphasizing! I'll use this power responsibly, I swear. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, MrX! I have a request, in particular for the George Floyd articles: instead of an immediate canned dismissal of all semi-protected edit requests that aren’t formatted with exact wording, or a claim that they need consensus before posting a request (their note is an attempt to gain that consensus), can you leave the messages alone for at least a little while, to allow editors to evaluate the request? In many cases the requests at those article are to add valid information. Remember that these are brand-newbies making the requests (that’s why they can’t add it themselves), so it is unreasonable to expect them to propose a properly formatted text. A lot of the time they are simply providing a lead for us experienced editors to evaluate. If you aren’t going to treat them as such, maybe you should just not answer them. What do you think about this suggestion? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about what it really says to new or logged out users. (I hadn't checked because I didn't want to have to log out.) I can certainly understand why those instructions are ignored by newbies. And I can sympathize with someone who wants to have something added to the article but doesn't understand all the particulars they are supposed to supply. I can sympathize because I am also somewhat non-techie, and I sometimes get lost trying to follow complex instructions. (I confess: I am the admin who screwed up my own RFA transclusion. When I see an instruction like "substitute the time parser function" my response is "do what to the what?") You're right that we'll never reform that setup. Too many cooks may bake something inedible, but they'll never admit it; if they try again they'll probably make it worse. So my own approach to the question I raised here - how to respond to a legitimate request that didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's (which they virtually never do) - is to go ahead and do what they asked anyhow, if I can. And even to thank them for the tip. Isn't that better than biting a well-meaning newbie? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sahasa Simha Comics Seies. Since you had some involvement with the Sahasa Simha Comics Seies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 19:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrX, I respect your professionalism in the way you edit and treat people (not always kind, but always fair) from what I've seen. I wanted to ask your advice about a couple things.
The first is about the changes made at Talk:Joe_Biden by Snooganssnoogans. The first edit is followed 4 other similar edits and then another a few hours ago. This is looking to me more like a personal attack with deepening WP:ASPERSIONS and throw in some WP:BLUDGEON as well. WP:AGF and Civility also come to mind.
I pinged him and called him out gently in my 17:40 edit -- with no response.
Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill or should I take the next steps in the dispute resolution?
The second question is in regard to reliability of Rising_(news_show) and Hill TV. It appears that this is produced/published by The Hill and presumably under its editorial oversight. The last 3 discussions about the Hill on WP:RS/N were after Rising existed as part of thehill.com (Rising was never mentioned). The argument made by Snoogansnoogans implied that it opinion or no consensus (by referring to the hosts as cranks and comparing to Fox programming). CBS527 argues there is no consensus. The piece in context seems reliable (as a direct video interview), but as it is mainly about Times Up and not Biden so is only useful as a supporting source. There are at least 54 articles with references cited from Rising.
To me, it seems like Rising is billed as a News show and is just part of TheHill.com. I assumed it was a RS after I reviewed WP:RS/P. I would think the next step for Snoogans or CBS would be to open a RfC to remove the implied consensus.
Does that match with your understanding of RS or am I off my rocker?
As a side note, I plan to review my thoughts in the Talk:Biden pages and see if I still feel the same way with only the other sources. I am planning on changing some of my vote text (with appropriate strikethrough) to remove The Hill source and replace it with Vox and maybe another better source.
Regards and thanks for your time and advice. -- Davemoth ( talk) 03:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrX, I was just perusing the photos you've taken and uploaded on your userpage. They're really quite excellent. Kudos to you. Just added one of the to this article. Ergo Sum 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I had not noticed it till well after I posted my diffs and comments (probably as I had my edit window open same time you were posting) but in the future, if you're going to bring up 5 year old diffs about me and editorialize them so publically [2], maybe ping me. Kind of odd really since I have been pretty much absent from your arena as of late. Thank you.-- MONGO ( talk) 18:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You know this though I would imagine. -- Malerooster ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, MrX. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Political endorsements".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 09:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is all the reverts done by you just now, and I'm assuming this is a gross violation of WP:1RR. I'm basing this off of your interpretation of a "revert". Self-revert and learn to use the talk page. Is your editing the type that needs to be reported to WP:AE for review? Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Cheerio, XavierItzm ( talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
As discussed on the Joe Bide page, please self-revert. Please consult this with someone if you are still unsure about the policy. It obviously states one revert per user per 24 hours. It also states that multiple edits that revert a change count as one revert. It doesn't say that you can keep reverting all day long and everything counts as one revert. BeŻet ( talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
BeŻet (
talk)
20:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Situation now apparently clarified. You can make several reverts of content that has appeared before you preformed your first revert. BeŻet ( talk) 20:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you have passed 1RR on the Reade article today. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your revert of my edit to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. So far, I’ve had two editors agree with me. I didn’t realize at first that there was a template specifically for disease outbreaks, so now I’m discussing it on the template’s talk page. I’m mostly a medical contributor to Wikipedia, and I take issue with the term “Official website” being used to refer to an outbreak itself, rather than a government response. So, I’m inviting you to join the discussion. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 11:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you misplaced this on my page. In general I am not interested in your issues, but I communicate to authors, if I have the feeling something is fishy.
In any case, can you explain the meaning of this alert? Platonykiss ( talk) 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Apparently arranged by me [ [10]], its hard to now not make some joke. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I thank you to enlighten me about the true nature of this inflammation! Platonykiss ( talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I find that you are a biased editor just from your talk page. I am trying to get at least ONE article on wikipedia to be balanced. I am sure that confirmation bias will not allow you to read the article with a true editor's eye. PRETEND you are non partisan or even lean right and read GENERAL Michael Flynn's article knowing the information that is now available in the last 3 days in which people like Susan Rice, Sally Yates, and other frequent guests on CNN (a source wikipedia accepts) say UNDER OATH, from their public statements on CNN about Russia Collusion. Totally opposite. I want to be able to trust Wikipedia, but I cannot because I know that it is ran by those on the left who will not allow a balanced article on political figures. Just look through the talk page, any OPINION of bad is accepted, any showing that the article is inaccurate are not accepted even with each fact sourced. I went through the list of sources, many from years ago, that are now known to be false, and my comments were erased by someone. I did not know but now do about stealth editing. Bad for truth. I also note, no source that goes against the liberal bias is accepted. I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip. 173.172.158.168 ( talk) 03:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It's at the bottom of Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and might sound vaguely "problematic", but that's just how I write. I assure you I bear no ill will, real or imagined. Just forgot to tag you and thought you should know "it" happened again. Also, I just noticed you said "Definifinitely" two springs back. Pretty funny word, intentional or not, in a good way! InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"This" CHANGES everything. Thanks for emphasizing! I'll use this power responsibly, I swear. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, MrX! I have a request, in particular for the George Floyd articles: instead of an immediate canned dismissal of all semi-protected edit requests that aren’t formatted with exact wording, or a claim that they need consensus before posting a request (their note is an attempt to gain that consensus), can you leave the messages alone for at least a little while, to allow editors to evaluate the request? In many cases the requests at those article are to add valid information. Remember that these are brand-newbies making the requests (that’s why they can’t add it themselves), so it is unreasonable to expect them to propose a properly formatted text. A lot of the time they are simply providing a lead for us experienced editors to evaluate. If you aren’t going to treat them as such, maybe you should just not answer them. What do you think about this suggestion? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about what it really says to new or logged out users. (I hadn't checked because I didn't want to have to log out.) I can certainly understand why those instructions are ignored by newbies. And I can sympathize with someone who wants to have something added to the article but doesn't understand all the particulars they are supposed to supply. I can sympathize because I am also somewhat non-techie, and I sometimes get lost trying to follow complex instructions. (I confess: I am the admin who screwed up my own RFA transclusion. When I see an instruction like "substitute the time parser function" my response is "do what to the what?") You're right that we'll never reform that setup. Too many cooks may bake something inedible, but they'll never admit it; if they try again they'll probably make it worse. So my own approach to the question I raised here - how to respond to a legitimate request that didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's (which they virtually never do) - is to go ahead and do what they asked anyhow, if I can. And even to thank them for the tip. Isn't that better than biting a well-meaning newbie? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)