@Aarontaksingmak: I'm afraid I will not be able to help you with an interview. You may recall that I gave you an interview in August 2015 when you worked for another publication. Not only did you (or your editor?) not run the story, but you didn't even follow up with an acknowledgment that you had received my email responding to your interview questions. Best to you. - MrX 🖋 20:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Close challenge thread should be added as evidence. [1] You were not only blown off but told it felt like harassment, told that an arbcomm case was a waste of time and threatened with a block. (Diffs available) I'm likely short of words and restricted or I'd put it in myself after I noticed you mentioned it. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent large section trims on this article seem well placed. In looking at the Foreign Policy section there, it appears to be completely redundant to the special topics article for Foreign Policy in the Trump Administration. This redundancy is all the way down to the individual countries which are covered which are fully redundant to the main article, and worse, they are selectively singled out and not remotely updated as well as the main article for Foreign Policy. This entire section of Foreign Policy in the Presidency article should be trimmed as you have already done elsewhere in the other section of this same article, with all redundant portions removed with the link left for the main article. More trims seem warranted since you have already started on this. CodexJustin (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments CodexJustin. I did have a look at the material under foreign policy, but I was struggling with what to trim. There's still a lot more that needs to be done, to be sure. I trimmed about 50,000 bytes, but the readable prose size did not go down at all! Feel free to jump in to help with the trimming if you see something overly detailed or already covered in another article.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. I'm actually for trimming more of the section in its larger part and keeping the main article link, since only the main article seems to be receiving any of the updates for all the countries listed. Since editors seem happy with the trims you have already just done recently, it seems you can continue to trim all of the countries covered in the Foreign policy section since they are fully redundant in comparison to the main article for Foreign policy. I'm fully supportive of your trims and you can keep making them. The article currently at half-a-million bytes is just too long. CodexJustin (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I know we have disagreed a number of times on this topic but I'm curious about this part of an edit summary [[2]], "We're not here to repeat the excuses of the NRA's lawyers". I'm not sure what part of my change would have looked like an excuse or indicated a NPOV issue. I do agree that the Newsweek article said "letter to Congress" but the NPR article says the letter was to a senator and the actual letter, copied by NPR, supports that. However, I could be wrong because it was clearly sent to the senator in an official capacity. Also, I hope the comment about watching my citations was in error. As I said on the talk page, the two sources, NW and NPR were published on the same day. I didn't see replacing one with the other as an issue given the NPR article was more detailed and provided a copy of the original letter in the article. However, I guess I should have left the original one even though it was redundant. Anyway, I'm posting here because the comments were came across as a personal rebuke in a context where I felt I was being very even handed. I hope this was just one of those cases where we miss something in reading since I'm not seeing the issues you suggested. Take care! Springee (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: My edit summary was not an indictment of your intention. It was merely a comment about how the content read. I was mistaken about when the Newsweek article was published, so I apologize for that. We can discuss the material further on the talk page.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, on my talk page, there is a notification of sanctions due to past disruptions on post-1932 politics of the United States. While there are articles on that topic, I did not edit or read any of tem. What are these sanctions there for then if I have shown no interest whatsoever in that topic?Primal Groudon (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 recently 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.
Hello! I want to ask your help. I can not place interesting and encyclopedic information into article about Donald Trump (I see only "view source"). Music taste of the US President. You can easy do it instead me. Trump likes The Beatles and Elton John. You can create new section, if is need. Or place in some existing section.
@2.94.81.158: You can make an edit request on the "view source" page. You will first have to write the exact text that you would like to be added to the article (and explain where to put it), along with the source that you have already identified. You can make the edit request here.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not how Wikipedia works, and the article is not lacking for having an absence of trivia about Trump's musical tastes. If it's important to you, you will need to put forth the effort to have it included.- MrX 🖋
@Mandruss: I have no idea why they changed it, but I don't think it matters (but the cite should be updated with the correct title and authors). The wording can probably also be updated now that Cohen has read his statement in front of the committee and the popcorn is a popping.- MrX 🖋 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take that as your assurance that the new one supports the content, and I'll change the cite. I'll leave any wording change to you. ―Mandruss☎15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I don't understand this edit. From the phrasing, it sounds like you are suggesting that I haven't read WP:NOT, although that doesn't make sense in context. (You are against using tweets as sources for endorsements, but I didn't put any tweet-sourced endorsements into the list.) I would appreciate it if you would re-phrase your comment to clarify your point; if you mean that those editors who have added tweet-sourced endorsements should read WP:NOT, please say so. --Metropolitan90(talk)22:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: that was definitely not directed at you. I was only commenting on the the fact that other editors have relied on tweets for endorsements. I will clarify my comment on the article talk page.- MrX 🖋 22:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For a short while, I went back to that chronic sick mode of being depressed on "reckless reverts", very often encountered by Wikipedians of the 'lesser kind'. But this last action by you totally made my day! :-)
Hello MrX, Viswaprabha has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You can't pick out the parts of a primary document that you think summarize its contents. That is original research. We also don't usually copy large tracts of text into an article, and we don't refer readers with external links in the body of articles. Also, your formatting didn't conform to basic Wikipedia standards, which is a problem for an article that will be read by thousands of readers. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing The canvassing was inappropriate, but I did not see evidence that it actually affected the !votes in any meaningful way. Would you like me to re-open the discussion and let someone else close it?- MrX 🖋 01:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg)
- MrX 🖋 18:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
