Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:20, 1 August 2013

MrX	talk	articles	photos

Archives

2011 July - September 2012 July - September October - December 2013 January - March April - June

76.189

I would like to take a moment to try and change your mind about 76.189. I'll be posting this same message on two other user talk pages. If you could consider these relevant facts:

• The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
  1. A comment made after User:Dennis Brown had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
  2. A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
  3. After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
  4. A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
• There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
• The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
• The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
• The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
• Finally, he has apologized more than once.

Please reconsider your support of sanctions. From an outside perspective, this user has been treated unfairly, reacted fairly mildly, and has had those mild behaviors thrown back at him with very little actual support in diffs. If nothing else, let's encourage the IP to get an account and find a mentor.--v/r - TP 14:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will look at it more thoroughly and respond to your points above. I would mention though, that I also consider myself an outsider. I only recently encountered this user when then inserted themselves into an issue that I think could have been resolved much more calmly, with far fewer words. More on that later. - MrX 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right but also slightly wrong. The IP address involved is currently active and is a dynamic IP address. That the current user has had the IP address allocated for around 2 months is no evidence that it could not be taken back into the pool and reallocated sooner rather than later. Different ISPs seem to operate in different ways in this respect. Some do not deallocate the IP address until the connection is physically broken. Others will (apparently) randomly periodically reallocate an address (often overnight) presumably for maintenance or house keeping reasons. The template is thus correct and appropriate. I B Wright (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It could be interpreted either way, but the way I've interpreted it is that no one else has used the IP. My interpretation is based on what is and the other interpretation is based on what could be. I'm not saying which is right or wrong, I certainly am well taught on networking and understand how dynamic allocation works, but from my perspective the template is inappropriate to start with. If it were appropriate for any non-static IP address, we could write a bot to apply it automatically or even write it into the Wiki-software. We don't, we require humans to apply it because it's not so cut and dry as "It's not-static, template it." The policy says "to indicate other users share the same IP address" and up until and including now, no other users have shared that IP. No edits predate this user. Just my interpretation.--v/r - TP 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But they could in the future. My own ISP uses dynamic IP address allocation and would seem to change more frequently than the subject one. In fact: often when I open Misplaced Pages, but before I actually log into my account, there are sometimes user talk page messages waiting aimed at some other user of the IP address who edited directly from that address. Misplaced Pages, as far as I know does not automatically template just any IP address whether static or dynamic. A administrator would seem to add the appropriate template whenever abuse occurs from a particular IP address (the template makes reference to vandalism being monitored and reported). If I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here, bear with me because if my understanding is incorrect, please point out my error. I B Wright (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The only point of dispute is whether the template is for IPs that could be used by others or has been used by others. The way I read it, has is the correct interpretation but I've never seen a dispute of this type to have ever seen a conversation on the subject.--v/r - TP 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To address your first and second points, here are some diffs that I believe support the premises for the sanctions (acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama).

(Context for the next several diffs: "Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk." This is the origin point of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Longtime admin needs advice about WP:BITE)

On your third point, I don't know if 76.189 actually keeps a "bad admin list", but it seems to me that they view Misplaced Pages as a battleground. His ingratiating behavior toward Orangemike contrasts starkly with his interactions with admins that have apparently slighted him (DennisBrown, Bbb23, BWilkins). The existence of such a list is not a factor in my !vote, but his very conspicuous, polarized interactions with admins are. It leaves me with the impression that he is here to prove a point, and not build an encyclopedia.

On your fourth point, I would stop short of an accusation of trolling. However, 76.189.109.155's reactions to Andy's blunt comments does not help his case.

On your fifth point, I don't much care what this user does on their user page or user talk page, within reason, and while they are in control of the IP address. There was some undesirable behavior by several users involved in that fiasco. None of that factored into my !vote.

On your sixth point, it's great that he apologized. It would be be fantastic if he would agree not to add to noticeboard and talk page drama in the future. Since that is unlikely to happen, the proposed sanctions seem to be the next best alternative. - MrX 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied on AN. It was nice to branch out for a moment and talked to folks independently, 4 different conversations at once is taxing, but I think we can bring it back to one thread again.--v/r - TP 22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think I have anything of more to add to the AN discussion without repeating myself and becoming annoying. I don't believe I have a significant bias against IP editors, but I suppose it's natural to trust them a little less than registered users. - MrX 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It tis what it tis. I'm about all argued out too. Only so much you can advocate for someone else about something you're not really interested in before your worn out. At least I made a small change in the course of the conversation which is more than I actually hoped for. We'll have to see what the closing sysop says.--v/r - TP 03:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with You on this one, he was US citizen.
Anyway, my edit was less erratic, since Tesla never lived in Serbia.
We need to check were there any Tesla's inventions patented in Croatia or patented during the time he lived in Croatia. Youngster was smart, maybe he already invented something while he was in the highschool. :)
Thank You for the information. Kubura (talk)

Speedy request declined

Please take Bajoo to AfD if you believe it merits deletion. LFaraone 20:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - MrX 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm back

Help copyediting

Hi MrX! I've been working on this in my sandbox and would like to move it here soon, I really need to improve my grammar, prose etc further.

• I still want to sharpen its prose, could you please check it? I want to get the hang of basic copy editing, from what all I've read on the various help pages, I have applied it over there, you can even edit it yourself if you think that's easier since I'll still learn.
• Should I use the section "Etymology" instead of what I already put there?
• Also read the MOS, but still doubts regarding usage of apostrophes or italics in terms and works. Hope I've done that properly
• There are two references there which are taken from an whole section so no page numbers, should I use short citations for them?

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast

• The article looks quite good, although there is some opportunity for grammar and style adjustments. I would be happy to help with some of these after you transfer your edits into the live article. There is some (slight) excessive wordiness and a few PEACOCK phrases, but nothing at all objectionable. My advice on improving your writing for the encyclopedia is to read good articles. Of course it's helpful to read article in the same subject category as the ones you wish to edit.
• I think "Origin of the name 'Birbal'" is fine, or simply "Name origin". "Etymology" is a little formal, but OK as well. It's also concise.
• I find myself referring back to the MOS frequently for some of the less frequently used rules. I didn't see much of anything that stood out as wrong in the article, except under the "Death" section, I believe that quote marks should not be used in a block quote.
• I'm not quite following your last question. If you know the page numbers, you can include a range (for example p. 10-18, 38-42). If not, you can simple leave them out, although it is expected that if you add a source, you have actually read the cited passages from the source. Generally, I think you should try to use the same citation format throughout an article. Are you using ProveIt to add references? - MrX 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, I have placed it in the main space after making the small fixes that you've mentioned, now you can edit it. Yes, I meant that, there is a citation which is referenced to at least about 30 pages (one whole section) of a book. I was just wondering whether to break it into smaller ones with page numbers like in the short citation format? No, I do it manually but use google books citation tool to make them. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. If you are using a book source for multiple inline references, especially if the content might be challenged, then short citations are a good idea. The template that I use is template:rp which adds the page number(s) to the superscript footnote number. You can also use the method described here: WP:CITESHORT.

I will make some copy edits to your article as soon as I clear my head of other matters. Please don't hesitate to revert any of my edits if I err or if you disagree with an edit, and especially if I change the meaning of any content. - MrX 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to scan through more GA articles for improving my prose, I even looked at the peer review nomination page of other articles and realised how hard it is to improve the prose of something that you've written yourself, thanks for your time and please do see if you can sharpen it further. I picked up something after your first copyedit.

• The article shows that it is "start class", should I place it in the assessment page of its respective wikiproject? Is that necessary?
• I tried CITESHORT and didn't succeed but I don't think it's needed for this article since there are just two main books and I think it's clearly verified and straightforward. Do you think it is or should I leave it just as it is? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reassessed the article as C class for WikiProject biography. With a little more work, I'm sure it could easily be brought up to B class. Most WikiProjects have a section for requesting assessments, and only occasionally will they be assessed otherwise. Also, it can take a long time after posting an assessment request before someone actually completes it. You can request a WikiProject Biography assessment here. WikiProject India assessment requests can be made here. - MrX 16:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clean up and deletion

After cleaning up this article, this happened, I tried to explain but got this reply. Would should I do normally when such things happen? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Not everyone understands that this is supposed to be a collaborative editing environment. I think your edits were bold, but grounded in reason. They were reverted and now, of course, it is time to discuss them and try to reach a consensus (see WP:BRD).

I would suggest opening an article talk page discussion laying out the edits you think are needed. Some of the edits that are needed are clearly policy based, so you should refer to specific policies in your arguments, especially since the editor who reverted your contributions may not be familiar with our policies and guidelines.

After you open a discussion, you can leave a talkback notice (built into Twinkle) on the GT's talk page, inviting them to the article discussion. It would also be a good idea to leave a neutrally-worded message at WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please be careful not to WP:CANVAS though.

I find it useful to break the content issues into manageable chunks. For example, unsourced content, unreliable sources, inline citations, MOS issues, and so on.

If no one joins the discussion, or if you can not influence GT to your way of thinking, then there are some other options such as getting a third opinion and DRN. More on dispute resolution here: WP:DR.

I will add the page to my watch list, but I will not get directly involved unless it starts getting ugly. I will also watch your progress toward resolving the dispute, and offer advice along the way. Good luck! - MrX 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hurray my first dispute. :/

I have posted on the article's talk page directly addressing that user, let's see. If it doesn't work I'll consider placing it in the noticeboard for related topics.

Another thing: Isn't dispute resolution only for users over a serious issue? I mean to say this is clearly a gross and obvious violation, is there a faster method or something? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw. I would probably recommend specifically not addressing the user, but rather laying out your case for improving the article in a non-personalized manner. We have a saying around here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor", which is good advice because human nature is such that people tend not to respond well to direct criticism. Although it may seem strange to do, steering clear of the word "you" on article talk pages can actually accomplish a lot.

Dispute resolution is an informal process for (trying to) resolving content disputes, which are very, very common here. Personally, I have found that most disputes can be resolved on article talk pages if everyone involved is open and receptive to compromise. I have found that there is usually some middle ground that accommodates most viewpoints. Finding it is the challenge. In this case, I might start by asking GT to express what his concerns are about the edits you made. As they say, "seek first to understand, then to be understood." - MrX 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Images

I'm going to do some work on this article soon, and find that it has at least 3 images which are unnecessary. (all show an image of a respective aircraft but fail to focus on the actual reverse thrusting device located at its jet engine) Can I just remove them while editing? or is there something to be done, I'm clearly not deleting them which I've read involves are big process.

This article recently has undergone a big change with many new images, from what I've understood nothing is known about the license and contacting the user has not been fruitful. What should I do?

For long time, I've been trying to use these public watchlists of various projects which for some reason never load, like this one. It worked just once though, does it work for you? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do think the extra images should be removed and especially the gallery, the C-130 pitch prop image, the CL-215 image and possibly the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7 turbofan engine image because it's so underexposed. At most there should be one full commercial aircraft image. I recommend leaving an edit summary explaining that you are removing them per image policies and guidelines (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE), WP:IG and WP:MOSIM). All you need to do is remove the images from the article.

Regarding Sanal Edamaruku, The infobox image is good. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th images seem to be properly licensed, but I would remove at least two of them, as they seem to be redundant. The fourth image is (likely) a copyvio and will automatically be deleted in within the next 24 hours. Then a bot will come by to remove it from the article. If someone uploads it again, you should nominate it for F9 speedy deletion.

The toolserver watch page worked for me, but it was slow to load. Unfortunately, the toolserver tends to be overloaded at times, so you probably have to just keep trying. This may also be affected by your geographic location. - MrX 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again, I'll proceed as you've said.

But the 4th image was there for sometime now (3rd July), will it automatically be removed now?

Does the toolserver watch page work just by looking for the wikiproject template on an article? If so, then that's another reason to place those respective wikiproject templates on orphan stubs. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the red-bordered box here you will see that the image will be automatically deleted, probably in about 10 hours. When images are uploaded without proper copyright and licensing information, they are deleted 7 days later.

Yes, I believe the tool looks for pages in the category 'Wikiproject X articles' which is created when a Wikiproject banner is added to an article talk page. Yes, it is a good idea to place the banners on pages withing the scope of the project. There are some bots that do this, but only in specific topic areas where they can unambiguously determine that an article belongs in a particular Wikiproject. - MrX 14:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, Apparently, there was some issue in the reversion. I was reverting the edit of the IP address, and the reversion tool happen to revert the edit before me (which already performed the action I was trying to perform). A little misunderstanding, just wanted to let you know. --JustBerry (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that! I will revert the notice I placed on your talk page. - MrX 23:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm reverting too :) --JustBerry (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hoping to be adopted

Hi, Mr. X - I'm a new editor in need of some guidance, so I'm hoping you'll be willing to adopt me. Thanks! --Ailemadrah (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ailemadrah - Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I would be happy to adopt you and provide you with some guidance. I don't have a formal program, but generally offer my help in the form of answering questions, explaining our policies and guidelines, reviewing your contributions and helping you locate resources that can help you in your WikiCareer™. I can also recommend areas of the encyclopedia to contribute to, beyond just editing articles.

As a starting point, would you give me some idea of what you kind of guidance you need right away? I see that you have created an article already (nice job). I also see that you received help from Binksternet, who is one of our most productive and respected contributors.

Do you plan to create more articles, or work on some of the existing articles in your areas of interest? - MrX 02:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. X! For starters, I'm confused about how best to communicate with you so that your responses show up on my talk page, where I can easily refer to them. Can I ask you a question on my talk page and then send you a talkback? --Ailemadrah (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We can use your talk page. I have it on my watch list, but I may still miss your posts. Could I ask you to append {{reply to|MrX}} to the front of any new messages to me, that way they will alert me through our notification system? This new method is a little simpler and less cumbersome than talk back templates. - MrX 14:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Potato Germans

Goodday. -I write to you concerning that you did not approve my edits on the article about Potato Germans. Earlier today, i added some things to the article, such at a list of the 59 families, who stayed on the Alheath for more than a year, and something about the history about the Potato Germans. -I would like to send you a complaint, since i have sources, that i myself consider deeply credible. One is the danish article about the Potato Germans (http://da.wikipedia.org/Kartoffeltyskere), the other is a book about the Winkler-family, which i myself is a part of. The book contains 229 pages of facts about the Potato Germans in general, and the Winkler-family in particular. I consider the two very credible, and i would like for you to reconcider whether you will approve the article or not. KristofferWinkler (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Sincirely, Kristoffer Winkler.

Hi Kristopher. I'm sorry about reverting your contribution. As I mentioned on your talk page, the material that you added had no sources. Could you please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE which will help you to understand why we want sources in articles and how to add source citations. Also, please understand that da.wiki can not be used directly as a source, but if the da.wiki article is sourced and you have read those sources, then those sources can be used in this article.

Don't worry, your additions are not lost. They are archived in the article history and can be retrieved. Feel free to restore the material by reverting my edit, but please add the sources that you are referencing to the article as footnote citations. Don't worry too much about formatting. Other editors, including myself, can help with that. - MrX 20:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great to know. Thank you for your help. KristofferWinkler (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ender's Game

Hey, I bumped into you over at Ender's Game (film) a while ago. You seem to be chasing a sock that may have returned there. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that. It's a dynamic IP, so all we can really do now is revert the edits since they remove relevant, sourced content included by consensus. WP:SPP might be an option as it allows admins to temporarily protect a page "Subject to vandalism or edit-warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP-hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address changing schemes such as IP address spoofing." - MrX 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this about the Lead information? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually no. There was another IP (dynamic) who removed the entire controversy section. I then restored it, added sources, expanded it and then wrote a couple of sentences in the lede. Both IPs are likely banned users, given their unusually high aptitude for Wiki-arcana. In any case, we will see if they join the discussion or simply continue edit warring. - MrX 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses on Talk:Ender's Game (film). I put in some more feedback. Perhaps the section can start off like:

In July 2013, the group Geeks Out launched a website to boycott the movie in response to Card's statements about gay marriage following the Supreme Court decisions in March (or whatever month), and the announcement of the production of the film in (whatever month and year). (comment by media analysts both sides can go here if notable)

Card has since (or put date) responded in (media source) that (official recent article responses). On (date), Director (NAME) said in Entertainment Weekly (verbiage about the background checks and that it should be judged independent of personal views).

Hopefully that makes things balanced and encyclopedic. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

i agree that the first sentence need more precision, however, this started in March. I will continue my comments on the talk page, so that others can participate.- MrX 11:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Legambiente

Sorry, I translated the presentation from their websites. Seem useful to me (both description and additional external links) --Caterpillar95 (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's OK as long as what you wrote are in your own words. Subjects of articles do need to be notable though, with citations from reliable sources. - MrX 13:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, added the sources I used to write the page, see if it works now (books and sites written by known activists). --Caterpillar95 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement. You should try to use full citations though, listing the publisher, dates, page numbers and ISBN number. (see WP:CITE for more help). - MrX 17:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea... I'll do it when I have the books at hand...--Caterpillar95 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at California_Proposition_8. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. For this edit - where you revert, calling the content you removed (which is referenced to a SCOTUS decision) OR. Elvey (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I reverted an edit because a user added content that was a dubious summary of a primary source, which is WP:OR. I also posted my reasoning on the talk page and the issue has been amicably resolved. Why do you believe my edit was disruptive or unconstructive, and how does it justfy templating me? - MrX 21:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." - a quote from WP:OR. Even assuming the content was a dubious summary of the SCOTUS decision, it still wasn't OR, and I think you know that.--Elvey (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You omitted the next sentence: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

I think your interpretation of the applicability of OR to the edit I reverted is faulty, but even it it wasn't, it doesn't justify the warning message that you left, or your apparent assumption of ill intent on my part. - MrX 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, this addition of yours was truly awful. It emphasized the minority argument in the losing side of the court decision, and it was very poorly integrated. Anybody would have, and should have, reverted it. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr X, The warning was For this edit - where you revert, calling the content you removed (which is referenced to a SCOTUS decision) OR. Subsequent edits by others are irrelevant. The current article says:

Justice Kennedy, writing for the minority, and also citing numerous precedent cases, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected. “In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around.”<ref name=scopinion/>{{rp|13}}

The content you removed said:

Justice Kennedy, in his dissenting opinion, expressed concern about the implications of the court's ruling on the initiative process, noting that voter initiatives existed precisely for when voters felt the government was insufficiently responsive to their concerns, and that elected officials should not have the ability to nullify voter-approved initiatives simply by choosing not to defend them. The dissenters said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected.<ref name=scopinion/>

I stand by what I said. Your apparent continued ignorance of what OR is, paired with an invalid and unsupported assertion that what you removed was OR is no excuse. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." again, that is a direct quote from WP:OR. The removed content obviously wasn't OR, and thus the warning was earned, even if you and others can't see the truth or obviousness of that fact, or quote additional content from OR that in no way changes that fact. Blatant misuse of the OR label is disruptive. --Elvey (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. You have cherry-picked from WP:OR to try to bolster your assertion, which I've already refuted, based on the sentence immediately after the one you cited. You can not take simply take Justice Kennedy's opinion and reword it, emphasizing some aspects and not others. He never noted that "...voter initiatives existed precisely for when voters felt the government was insufficiently responsive to their concerns." What he did say was "...what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process." If you wish to use primary sources in controversial articles, it's best to directly quote the source, with appropriate context. - MrX 19:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Orange Park, New Jersey

Take a look at the article for Orange Park, New Jersey. I agree that the article as it existed when you nominated it for deletion did not meet standards, and I have significantly expanded the article. Let me know if I have addressed the concerns you have raised at AfD or if there is anything else that I can do to convince you to change your mind regarding notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for finding some sources. I withdrew the nomination and NAC'd it. - MrX 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I?

Hey there, I thought of trying peer reviewing after seeing the page having the problem of many requests, but no reviews. Some user posted there that even newbies can help by at least commenting, I've found this rather old one which no one has looked at so far and would like to do so; But isn't it better to make edits myself rather than trying explain it over there? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the choice is entirely yours. The benefit of commenting at peer review is that MONGO can receive feedback that may help them improve as an editor. - MrX 15:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay so here goes. I'm not doing a full in depth review, I'm just commenting and there is a list of inactive requests. Do I add {{doing}} over it and remove it from the list when I finish? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done! It looks like your comments were well-received too. Yes, you should add {{Doing}} to the request and also remove the article's listing from the list near the top of the page. - MrX 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mapping_and_Analyzing_Data_Matrices_in_Real_Time

Thanks for your message. I did think that the article was a likely copyright violation, however I was unable to find an original source to confirm that was the case. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Glad to help. - MrX 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have undone your close on ANI

First, you should not close topics you opened - if you are withdrawing, you state "withdrawing based on discussion" and someone else will close if/when it's appropriate. Second, your incredible sarcasm you used in your close shows you actually fail to understand both the discussion and the issues raised. Third, when you submit an ANI filing, it clearly states that your actions will also be investigated. Fourth, you were NEVER ridiculed - so your suggestion otherwise shows a lack of understanding. Fifth - no, there was no such suggestion that "that type of short article is desired on Misplaced Pages". I will be watching here if you want to discuss why I reverted, or even any of the issues raised by both sides on that ANI discussion - I don't want you walking away from it "mad" - I'm hoping that both sides see this as a learning opportunity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment is ridiculous, but entirely predictable. Do what you want. I'm not interested in being involved in that toxic environment any longer. I really couldn't possibly care less. - MrX 13:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As you'll see, I reinstated the comments some time ago but not the close. You can obviously understand how that was accidental - and it's one of the problems one faces when one includes valid edits in the same edit as revertable edits - you've probably had the same thing happen while editing an article, and I'm sure you AGF'd then (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that you not only reverted the close, but you removed my comments as well. Funny, I thought that was against policy. - MrX 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm being ridiculous - explain to me how I'm being ridiculous. You do understand that I had to revert your close, so I assume that's not what you're pissed about. So, let's dig into the issues that are the problem so that you're less pissed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• First let me disabuse you of the notion that I'm "pissed" or "mad". Such is simply not the case. Disappointed would be more accurate.
• I don't see anything here: WP:CLOSE that says I can not close a discussion that I started. I closed it because it was going off topic and contributing to discord.
• My original post simply called for an admin to look at a possible issue. A simple, civil response addressing the issue (as opposed to my intentions or competence) would have neatly addressed the issue. Instead, the reported issue was largely ignored, and there were attempts to discredit me. Are folks not allowed to make errors in judgement here?
• While you had a prerogative to re-open the discussion, you certainly did not "have" to. You were conspicuously absent from any attempt to try to address the actual issue that I raised, but you wasted no time reverting my attempt to quell the drama.
• There was no "incredible sarcasm" in my closing statement, inasmuch as there was no intended irony. I sincerely meant every thing that I said, which for the record, since you deleted it:

I understood everything that was being said, thus my five points above.

• I don't see anything about "your actions will also be investigated" in the ANI header or here. If I missed it, it must be really subtle, and perhaps needs to be put near the top in 16pt bold red font. In any case, I don't much care if my actions are investigated because I did not bring a dispute to ANI; I brought what I perceived to be an issue with an editor who does not understand our policies, or who may not even realize that they have a talk page. A simple, "I think you are mistaken MrX, because X, Y and Z" would have sufficed.
• I believe I was ridiculed when A.amitkumar accused me of forum shopping in a rather colorful fashion. This was followed by DarkFall's comments about "blatantly inappropriate" warnings and " And people complain about editor retention issues". Where was the assumption of good faith?
• As to ""Fifth - no, there was no such suggestion that "that type of short article is desired on Misplaced Pages"." - Please see Deor's comment and the comments at the AfD which suggests that there are unwritten rules for certain subject areas that allow for the inclusion of content that we do not allow in other subject areas. In other words, the argument for allowing these articles is not based in written policy, but seems to be based on some ad hoc tribal knowledge.
• As long as everything at ANI is viewed as "sides in a dispute", the battleground mentality at ANI (as well as other fora) will continue unabated, and it will probably get worse. Reasonable people don't want to be involved in such things. I consider myself reasonable, thus my initial reply to you, above. - MrX 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate

on this edit summary? Instaurare (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit LGBT-related articles because you have been topic banned. That includes talk pages. - MrX 03:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

TB was lifted. Instaurare (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not according to this WP:RESTRICT. Please link to the community discussion where you claim the ban was lifted. - MrX 04:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

According to this WP:UNBAN, HJ Mitchell doesn't have the authority to lift your ban. Sorry. - MrX 04:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with him if you want, I'd like to get back to constructive editing. Instaurare (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference nytbetweenlines was invoked but never defined (see the help page).