User talk:MrX/Archive/July-September 2018

Concerning the edits made to the Unite the Right rally page

MrX, thank you for reverting an earlier edit of mine on the Unite the Right rally page. It seems that I had inadvertently removed several paragraphs of the page and I appreciate your efforts in minimizing the damage. Jerrytheman9 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I thought it was probably an accident. Happy editing.- MrX 🖋 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Syria Chemical Attack page

MrX - I do not understand "there is no consensus to include this article." How is "consensus" obtained on such an entry? There is no "consensus" not to include this article. Fisk is a senior experienced journalist and published author on Syria whose work is regularly quoted in academic articles. The Independent is a respected British newspaper. Fisk's visit to the site was the first journalistic report after the attack, gave rise to a series of charges and counter-charges, and was widely quoted in social media. It seems both relevant and useful in this entry to include this source. No editorial language was added in the entry to endorse or reject his findings. Can you kindly explain your objection? -- T2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafkira2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tafkira2: Consensus is obtained by discussing proposed content on the article talk page, making sure that your arguments are grounded in our policies and guidelines, and convincing other editors to support your proposal. You can read more about it here: WP:CONSENSUS. The merits of the specific edit have been discussed already on the talk page, including your above arguments.- MrX 🖋 19:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and sincere apologies for being so unschooled. I've now caught up, somewhat, on the proper procedures. I didn't even know that debate about Fisk was going on. I'll try to be more conversant in future. Re the Talk about that Fisk article, quite illuminating. The section to which I added mention of the Fisk article was titled "Media commentary." The article was, minimally, media commentary, and didn't violate WP:UNDUE since it was picked up and quoted so widely by diverse responsible sources, as cited in the Talk about it. Most of the Talk debate got tangled up in whether it was reliable as a source, not a record of media commentary. I'm getting the lay of the land here. Tafkira2 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about consensus with such users as Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes? I like your sense of humor. 145.255.171.3 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've been made formally aware of Eastern Europe (sorry if you have). As it states: merely informational, which I'm sure you know. I just don't like to giving it to one person when I notice an interaction that needs the alert since it is informational and everyone should be aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni. As it happens, I'm collecting these yellow alerts. Once I have a complete set, I can cash them in and take the vacation of a lifetime. - MrX 🖋 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad I could help TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit. "I wish I could say it was the first time", but you've been warned about this behavior before (hence, a level 3 warning). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: If MrX's comment was a PA (it's not, it's criticism), then your nomination is a PA (it's not, it's criticism). Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss yet another of your AfD nominations. My comment was justifiable criticism. Your nomination insulted the editor who created the article ("Ridiculous article", "Suggest Another Believer be trouted for creating it, he knows better."), it made false claims ("No encyclopedic value whatsoever.", "Fails WP:GNG over the long-term") and it showed a poor understanding of Wikipedia policies ("WP:NOTNEWS flash-in-the-pan.", " Fails WP:GNG over the long-term", " is a WP:1E"←[ Unless you consider a gas filled orange balloon a person ]). Finally, you and I have talked about your AfD record before which is why I wrote "I wish I could say it was the first time...".

Your AfD stats:

• Number of AfD's where Winkelvi's vote matched result: 104 (60.8%)
• Number of AfD's where Winkelvi's vote didn't match result: 51 (29.8%)

For camparison, my stats:

• Number of AfD's where MrX's vote matched result: 277 (84.2%)
• Number of AfD's where MrX's vote didn't match result: 39 (11.9%)

- MrX 🖋 13:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

AfDs are a competition and if delete occurs, you are "successful"? Interesting take on process and purpose. And Trouting, since you brought it up, is meant to be a nudge of humor not a criticism.

Back to the topic: please keep the personal attacks and comments about other editors out of things. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Humor, like when Trump gave Russia the go-ahead to hack Hillary's emails. Haha. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. My comments were justifiable criticism.- MrX 🖋 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Devin Nunes

Stop adding deliberate falsehoods, especially if they violate biographies of living persons policy, as you did on Devin Nunes. This may be interpreted as vandalism and you may be blocked (or topic banned) if you continue your disruption.

Please remember that IPs are human too. A missing edit summary is not an excuse to deliberately add falsehoods into articles. Politrukki (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, try toning down the clownish warnings. Second, the material was removed without an edit summary. Third, I didn't add anything, I reverted content blanking.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow! So you just reinserted content that you know to be 100% false and also reverted all my subsequent improvements? To prove a point or something? Please self-revert or I will take you to AE.

Using an edit summary is a recommended but it is not mandatory. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Whether "blanking" is disruptive or improvement depends on context and sometimes blanking is even mandatory. Please stop wikilawyering ("I didn't add anything"); if you restore content, you take responsibility of it and you need to actually read the cited sources and/or use common sense. Politrukki (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the content that someone else added several months ago. That's a better solution than deleting it entirely. As I mentioned, I did not find your other edits to be improvements.- MrX 🖋 22:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Calm down please

You know that insulting other editors especially where you did it is not tolerable. Please retract this or strike it out.--MONGO (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The overall level of shrillness in that discussion is doing neither the encyclopedia nor the editors involved much good. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Asking not be lectured is not an insult. Telling someone to calm down? Now that's an insult!- MrX 🖋 00:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Come on MrX….."And please don't presume to lecture editors who have far more experience building the encyclopedia than you do." is an insult.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a request after being lectured, and it's based on our respective contribution histories. By the way, since when are you the ambassador of civility? Shall I point out some of your greatest hits, or would you like to just drop this and go about your business?- MrX 🖋 01:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What difference does that make? Because they have fewer years editing here that makes them incapable of voicing a concern or offering an opinion?--MONGO (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Remind me again of your tolerance for other editor's views?[1]- MrX 🖋 01:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki has over 18K edits in the last 1.5 years...[2]. They are obviously not a "newbies" and even if they were, why insult them, especially there of all places? Obviously that is the place to be wearing our happy faces right?--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't insult them. I suggested that they not lecture more experienced editors. Now you. Why did you insult Tryptofish, one of the kindest editors on this site?- MrX 🖋 01:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So you have no intention of retracting your insult on a page that has discretionary sanctions? "And please don't presume to lecture editors who have far more experience building the encyclopedia than you do", is a hostile undermining attempt to nullify their contribution in a discussion at a page that has discretionary sanctions available.--MONGO (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If you go apologize to Tryptofish, I will gladly strike my comment and make good with power~enwiki. How's that sound?- MrX 🖋 01:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you have the opportunity now and you're a better man than me. Only one way to take the wind out of this sail MrX.--MONGO (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of lecturing going on over there, with little or no evidence of editorial distance coming into play. At some risk of lecturing you, there are lots of reasons NOTNEWS (I'll spare you the all cap bluelink) is policy. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a black and white issue like many try to portray it. The way it's bandied about by some make it pretty clear that haven't even read it, or at least don't understand it.- MrX 🖋 01:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's not black-and-white, but even at the best of times the news cycle takes a little longer than 12 hours to form useful material for us to write about. The events of this week are going to play out for a long time. It's one thing if it's a plane crash (though that's problematic too, look at MH 17, for instance), but in politics and foreign relations? On-the-spot news and analysis from our experts here at the DuMont Television Network isn't one our best features. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. As I said, we should consider including the material after a few days when we have some perspective. Although there was plenty of heat in the discussion, there was also some light.- MrX 🖋 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone should feel this diff should be struck. I respectfully disagree with his opinions on when lectures are called for; I find that giving excessive amounts of detail in situations like this is normally the best way to calm disputes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And I'm sure you realize that it was, at most, a mild rebuke on my part. I think you're a fine editor. - MrX 🖋 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about me, MrX. I'm aware of comments about me that took place a while ago, but not of anything in the last few days. If there is something new in the last few days, please give me a diff of it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus

MrX, I think your enthusiasm for things anti-Trump (understandable, especially after last weekend...) got ahead of you. The NRA material is under active discussion, consensus for any of the new material hasn't been established much less adding yet more text while our RfC said "a few sentences". We can wait for consensus. I won't ask you to self revert but let's try to get more discussion going first. Springee (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're out of order attributing my edits to "enthusiasm for things anti-Trump". You know how you don't like it when someone calls you an NRA shill? That's about how much I appreciate your reductionist view of my editing.

My assessment of the talk page discussion is that there is at least rough consensus for including the material about Russian agents trying to get to Trump via the NRA. The sentence that I added was very innocuous; simply clarifying material that was already in the article. On one hand you complain about there being no connection to the NRA, and then when I add a few words to explain the connection, you complain about that. I have been active in the talk page discussion, and unlike editors who simply point to a couple of vague policy shortcuts, I actually backed my arguments with 12 sources from all over the world.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think "anti-Trump" is an insult. I can't stand the man and think he's an embarrassment. I've struck the comment as it wasn't meant to be taken as it came across. There is previous RfC consensus for including the Russian material. I don't think we currently have enough consensus to support changes one way or another. On a pure vote count we are at 1 off even (I'm assuming Lionel opposes based on statements made). So at this time we can't reasonably say we have a consensus for the new material. I'm trying to offer a compromise by reworking the text.

Yes, I complained about the connection to the NRA was missing from the new material. However, since we were discussing change and I had proposed changes it was premature to make article changes. Part of my frustration with this new material is those who are pushing it are ignoring WP:BRD. I replied to your comments about news coverage. I also was trying to work with you to come up with a compromise version of the text. I hope we can still do that. Springee (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've since commented on the article talk page so let's continue the discussion there.- MrX 🖋 02:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This isn't meant to imply any problems with your edits. I'm simply notifying everyone involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University as a routine formality. –dlthewave ☎ 00:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

AE

Can you link to a discussion that shows a recent consensus for the edit you restored? If there is a consensus it should have been added to the list. There is no open RFC about this and I don't your trying to represent it as though I edited against an open RfC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The material has been in the article for quite a while, so that is the extent of the consensus. My revert challenged your removal of the material. There is also an RfC on the talk page in which I propose to rewrite the paragraph. The proposal includes the sentence that you removed, in a slightly different form. There is roughly 70% support for my proposal or a close version of it.- MrX 🖋 13:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not how consensus clause works. It's not "Consensus is presumed for one editor's version and the burden is always on other editors". Your restoring the content without consensus would be a violation, in my view, though the final decision would have to be made by uninvolved administrators. Regarding the RFC, you are representing the material at the RfC as having a consensus without any evidence that there is a consensus, as where User:Bus stop challenges the language and you tell him That material already has consensus. Feel free to start a new RfC or discussion if you think it should be removed. This is not the place, again for content that is not listed as Current consensus. As someone with very little involvement in this article, this looks like a violation. The RfC or consensus supporting your version should be clear and there should be evidence for it. The current RfC (which you opened) presents two very similar versions and asks editors which version they prefer, claiming there is already consensus for the content when editors challenge it. If there is consensus for the content in that paragraph, please provide a clear link for it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

See bullet 1 of the ArbCom restrictions at the top of the talk page. "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Your removal edit was challenged by MrX (by reversion), so you must obtain talk page consensus to reinstate said removal. The rest is irrelevant as to process in this situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that — my edit is a reversion of content of was previously added. (It would count as a reversion for 1RR also). It would be possible, but time-consuming, for me to go through the article history and find the edit(s) that I reverted. The edits that I reverted should not have been restored without consensus. The purpose of the consensus clause is not to "freeze" article content that doesn't actually represent a consensus. It is supposed to force editors to use the talk page and actually gain consensus for their edits, instead the effect is that new content is removed and a mythical "status quo" consensus is invented to protect the preferred version - this is why the consensus clause was repealed after its short and miserable tenure in ARBPIA, and it may be time to revist repealing it here. I'm not very involved with this article, but it appears to be doing more harm than good.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Admins have consistently affirmed the principle of de facto consensus—i.e., that after content has been in the article for some period of time, a removal of that content is no longer a challenge but rather a new edit. This amount of time is not a bright line, and opinions will obviously differ, but that particular content would easily qualify in the mind of any reasonable editor. Admin NeilN has suggested 4-6 weeks, and that content is well over that (if you wish to challenge my memory or my integrity as to that point, you are free to research that, either "manually" or using a tool like WikiBlame). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The principle that has been applied to this article by admin NeilN, if I recall correctly, is that material that has been in the article for six weeks or more is no longer considered "recently added" for purposes of enforcing the article editing restrictions.- MrX 🖋 14:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok thank you for explaining, I'll defer to User:NeilN on that. It was a bit different in ARBPIA and the consensus was ultimately to lift the restriction, but I think that's one of the hardest topic areas to work in. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: The de facto consensus concept is not unique to anything ArbCom, by the way. It's essential to the WP:BRD process, else all edits except those adding brand new content would be R's. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Technically, they are reverts. I only know that because I've been sanctioned for making such a revert in the past. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see a sanction for removal of something that has been in the article that long. The world is full of new and wondrous things to see. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The tacit consensus principle is necessary for the concept of "bold" editing - but I think many editors, including myself, are skeptical about claims that length of time "strengthens" a consensus (I know the "supplement" for WP:SILENCE says something like this, but WP:SQS contradicts it and neither are policies). NeilN is on the admin side of things, and if he thinks 4-6 weeks is a practical way to implement the restriction I'll defer to his experience - I'm not a regular editor of Trump articles and have no wish to become more acquainted with the topic area at this time so I'll leave it there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System and Mandruss: The purpose of the consensus-required clause is to encourage article stability. That is, when a bold edit is reverted, an edit war doesn't break out and the the talk page is used instead. A bold edit can range from adding new material, removing longstanding material, or tweaking longstanding material. If material was added without discussion, but didn't raise any objections, consensus doesn't really enter into the equation but BRD does. The removal of longstanding material is the bold edit, it was reverted, now discussion (instead of an edit war) should take place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Erik Prince

Hello. Your edit at Erik Prince violated discretionary sanctions by reinstating challenged material without obtaining talk page consensus. Please self-revert. Politrukki (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Why hello again! The restriction is "must not reinstate any challenged edits", not material. The wording you boldly changed has been in the article for more than two months. If you wish to change it, you should seek consensus on the talk page now that it's been challenged.- MrX 🖋 21:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK

... that whitewashing articles about alleged Russian spies and their familiars is a sign that an editor may be interested in improving our coverage of topics related to conservatism? –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's funny because I just read that article about 30 minutes ago and added Maria Butina to my watchlist. I came across it as I was reading about the connections between the NRA, Russia, and the Trump Campaign which I wrote about at Talk:National Rifle Association#The NRA-Russia-Trump connection .- MrX 🖋 12:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification of ARCA

There is an ARCA request in which you're involved. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment request: post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello MrX/Archive, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your conspiracy theory comment

Re: this: [3], it's not a "conspiracy theory" at all: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah! That's what you were referring to. I'm a bit familiar with her activism, and as a skeptic have seen her articles and mention of her 3-4 times. She's quite a bit more of an activist then I am (I only share RS on FB and Twitter), but still within our PAG, and in fact a positive thing, as learning how to vet sources, and training in using RS and resisting unreliable sources, are all good things. You just happen to be on the wrong side of things too often, so you see it as a negative. If you didn't believe Trump's conspiracy theories, the ones pushed by unreliable sources, her activism wouldn't bother you.

I've never seen any kind of coordination here, even though one would think that might happen. Since I'm on skeptic mailing lists, one would think I'd be recruited, since I don't hide that I'm an editor here, but I have never seen anything. If there were any form of violation of policies, then we'd have a problem, but the people who are interested in this type of thing are on the right side of PAG and RS, so they are a net asset here. They keep Wikipedia from turning into Fringeopedia, Trump-Putin Wiki, or Anti-democracy Wiki.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"If you didn't believe Trump's conspiracy theories, the ones pushed by unreliable sources, her activism wouldn't bother you." Believe Trump's conspiracy theories...? When in the fresh hell did you get that idea? I challenge you to find one comment - just one - that proves your unfounded and outrageous claim about me, BullRangifer. What bothers me about her is that she has an agenda and is training people to infiltrate and game policy. It's just another form of WP:COI and paid editing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You tend to defend content, people, and subjects, which are associated with conspiracy theories (like that the Trump-Russia dossier is fake, or that the whole Russiagate thing is some spurious Clinton/GOP attempt to undermine Trump, or the idea of a Deep state out to get Trump). That's what I mean. You actions are quite consistently pro-Trump and have given me that impression. If you don't believe any of those, then I apologize.

Your characterization of her work as "infiltration" and "paid"... Where do you get those ideas? She's very open about it, even here at Wikipedia, ergo there is no "conspiracy". It's been a couple years since I've looked at her profile, and she doesn't pop up on any of the political articles where I currently edit. She doesn't seem to be interested in politics at all, so your concerns are unfounded. She's more interested in pseudoscience, quackery, and alternative medicine, things which interest me as well, but which I have largely been ignoring because of the all-consuming presence of Trump and his pushing of real fake news. That affects editors here, and they create problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, BullRangifer, diffs will prove your claims about me, not your faulty memory and personal impressions. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have diffs for your accusations? They are against a fellow editor (User:Sgerbic), and that there are "COI" and "paid" editors who have "infiltrated" Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles I posted above? She admits to it. Look at the Facebook page of the group. She congratulates them on their efforts. It's been covered in countless articles for the last few years. It's documented fact. Oh, and - since "we go with the sources", there are sources that have covered it (reliable ones, too). Look it up. Google is your friend. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have their methods and goals violated any PAG, or are they, as I described above, inline with our policies? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

ec... Your accusations aren't much different than this wild accusation. Do you also believe that there is a "false narrative of events surrounding Trump-Russia-Spygate"? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

They are an organized group with an agenda. I didn't name Gerbic specifically, you did. I have no opinion in regard to the quote you posted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe I should join them. We have lots of projects here, and they are allowed. You should ask a few questions: Is their agenda bad? Is it against PAG? Do they encourage the use of unreliable sources, or do they use RS? These are what counts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, an "agenda" to promote the use of RS is very much at the foundation of Wikipedia and its interests. Opposing a group of editors who do that won't help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Their work is described here: Susan Gerbic#GSoW. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well okay then. MrX you seem to have all my contact info, I am very open to discussing our motivation and our methods. Please be in contact. I would like to remind you that WikiProjects such as edit-a-thons focusing on women, history, art happen all the time and are completely supported by WikiMedia. Also there are many (mostly inactive) Wikipedia groups that focus on specific topics, Seattle, Women in Red, and so on, there probably is a left-handed one-legged Norwegian football player project somewhere. They ALL have an agenda. To support, build, write those pages. GSoW is no different, except we have in-house training (far superior IMHO) to anything you can get on Wikipedia. We also are communicating in a Secret Cabal on Facebook (yep, we have a secret cabal) using it to motivate, train and discuss endlessly the correct placement of commas, it is engaging conversations. If you have a problem with us talking in this way, well that's nice. It is no different than at a Edit-A-Ton with conversations not recorded and only people who attend knowing what was discussed. No different than people emailing each other back and forth about how best to proceed on a project. We just have found an efficient way to do so, considering we have people located all over the world in many time differences. As you said, we are quite public about the pages we work on. AND? We have a new website and also a YouTube, Twitter and Instagram accounts you neglected to mention. We focus on Science, Scientific Skepticism and the Paranormal. Oh there is one more difference, we do this in all languages. Once we make a page live, it is fair game for anyone to edit, change or whatever is needed. My team rarely is involved in anything closely resembling a edit war or anything of the sort. Time is precious and we have thousands of pages to work on, no Wikipedia page is important enough to be the one we die on (or get banned). If you have a specific issue with a specific page, please engage on the talk page. And BTW you probably have been working quite nicely with GSoW members and had no idea you were doing so, we are just like everyone else, except probably better trained and more polite. I hope that none of GSoW would ever talk behind another editors back, we would tag that editor at the beginning of the conversation, I see you neglected to do so. THANK you BullRangifer for tagging me in this interesting discussion. I'm sorry we haven't recruited you, but the simple reason is because we don't recruit skilled editors. We only focus on training brand new people who either have never edited before, or tried to do so on their own, but found the process daunting to understand the terminology and process. As I said MrX, please reach out to people and discuss, we all have the same goals, to improve Wikipedia. Have good faith. Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: I was not the editor linked to your off-wiki activities, nor do I see how they are related at all to the comments that I reacted to an another user's talk page. Here is what Winkelvi posted on that page, with the alarming parts highlighted:

I understand why you are trying hard to keep the Daily Caller article neutral, and I agree with your reasoning. You're not wrong. What's wrong, however, is edit warring over it as doing so is against Wikipedia policy, hence the reason why you have been blocked twice. If you want to help with editing Wikipedia articles, my suggestion is when your block expires, try editing without an emotional mindset or mission. Otherwise, you will end up frustrated and probably blocked once again. There are a few facts that make for a wall the normal person cannot conquer: (1) Regardless of its policies on neutrality, Wikipedia has morphed from actual encyclopedia to political and propagandic arm of a particular political party and progressivism; (2) There are administrators who are part of that ideological framework and will do anything - even lie about why and find any reason possible - to block you if you go against what the new Wikipedia is; (3) There are editors who are now being trained outside of Wikipedia and have infiltrated it (read: taken over) with the sole purpose of shaping content to fit an agenda, most notably in the area of politics, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. They have learned how to use and manipulate Wikipedia policy against anyone who comes up against them. The worst part of it is they have administrators who support their mission who will protect them and take their "enemies" down to clear the way for their purpose: to manipulate information and what online readers see on particular subject.

Find other types of articles to edit/contribute to/create if you want your account to remain active and not indefinitely blocked. I promise you, you will not win this battle. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:13 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

This type of paranoid, factless, conspiracy theorizing is exactly the kind of battleground mentality that Winkelevi is so well-known for.- MrX 🖋 16:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I seemed to have walked into a conversation mid-way so I'm a bit out of the loop. I'm sorry MrX for saying that you didn't tag me, I got confused as it is your talk page. It is this symbol editor who neglected to tag me. Sgerbic (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

Are you challenging the challenge? The material was added yesterday here, then challenged here, and then you reverted that here. Isn't that a DS violation of consensus required? PackMecEng (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ooops. I thought that material had been in the article for quite a while. I guess I should revert.- MrX 🖋 01:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There is so much crap going on at that article that personally I am going to wait until the dust settles. Even then I have a feeling it is going to be a contentious place for a little bit. Happy trails! PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we keep Bill Cosby's inmate number?

Is the prison Cosby is in and inmate number relevant? 2605:6001:E7DD:AC00:D022:802D:5248:401B (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Prison location yes, inmate number no. Fixed. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)