User talk:Morenooso/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Request to Reverse Speedy Deletion

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to contest your choice for the speedy deletion of the Trans-Formers entry that was recently added and removed from Wikipedia.

Below, I have provided a list of reliable sources which can support the legitimacy of the entry. I encourage you to pursue them in order to approve the article.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that there is room for all different kinds of knowledge to be shared, with topics ranging from pop culture to significant people, events, and places throughout history. It is unquestionably a non-elitist forum, with a purpose of disseminating knowledge in order to teach people about something that they may not fully understand.

Whether or not the Trans-Formers is something in which you have a personal interest or belief should not be the issue at hand, as the decision to keep an article should be based upon the demand by the readers.

With related articles such as those of the psychics Edgar Cayce and Daniel Dunglas Home, as well as psychic abilities such as telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance, there is clearly a demand for articles related to the Trans-Formers, and I believe that there is room for this entry amongst them.

My suggestion is that the Trans-Formers article remains on-line to allow individuals to contribute to the article and discuss it in order for it to become an entry that is undoubtedly of worth to Wikipedia. There should also be links from related pages to give individuals the opportunity to discover the page for themselves.

However, if you decide to stand by your decision, could you please provide an explanation?

References:

Hosein, Francis. Vers une Transformation Interieure. SamSarah Rainbow Planet: 2002.

Labonte, Marie Lise. La Médiumnité, Cette Terre Inconnue: Deux Médiums Répondent à Vos Questions. Shanti: 1990.

"New Messages"

Hi! I have a question: at the top of wikipedia pages, I'm getting an orange bar saying "You have new messages (last change)". I clicked on it, and read the messages, I think, but it is still appearing. Am I stuck with this orange notification for the rest of my life!? As an experienced user, I'm sure you know more about this than I do...

(problem solved!)

Follow-up on Appeal

I just wanted to follow-up with the decision to remove the Francis Hosein and Trans-Formers articles. It is my understanding that contributors have the right to an appeal when an article is removed, and I don’t feel that my appeal has been adequately addressed.

You informed me that the decision was made by an administrator, and I was hoping to contact that person directly to be able to clearly understand why the articles were removed. I have provided accurate references, as well as finding many similar pages to the Francis Hosein entry. These includes entries on Doreen Virtue, Esther Hicks, J.Z. Knight, James Van Praagh, Jane Roberts, Jeanne Dixon, Lisa Williams, Ronna Herman, Ruth Montgomery, and Sylvia Browne.

In some instances, the Hosein entry had no more references or credibility than any of these other psychics who have found a place in Wikipedia. For this reason, Hosein’s entry should be included amongst the other psychics, or they should all be excluded from Wikipedia.

If you decide to stick by the decision, I would really appreciate a concrete answer for why the articles were removed, either by you or the administrator.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

cancellation

Thank you but i'm now very tired and annoyed reading all those advices and pages about wikipedia policies. Since days I wait for an administrator to cancel my account. I found incredible being in the impossibility to cancel an account I created. "Do I have to make vandalism in Wiki pages to finally found someone clever enough to answer to my request and cancel my account?" I asked.. I had no reply. So if you can't really do something for me, please stop writing me. Thank you. MDMDMDMD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs), 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Power is given to those who talk the most, and usually know the least. I completey understand your frustration. Many of these so-called moderators are merely people who enjoy aserting their own personal agenda at times, and wasting the hard work of dedicated contributors. The fastest way to have your viewpoint deleted is often to simply express it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.35.129 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mary-Louise Parker

Why was my addition any worse then "..., appearing full frontally nude." ?

There was no reason to add that either. Don't you think that is a kind of comment?

3 Sheets to the Wind

Also, thanks for letting me know about three sheets to the wind. The band doesn't meet necessary notability requirements WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cburnett 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Burger Adventure

Hi. You recently deleted a link from the Hamburger wikipedia. I understand your concern. However, the link was added with the pure intention of diplaying current examples of what typical "the Lot" burgers consist of in Australia. Please re consider before deleting.

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgeradventure (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I carefully consider all my reverts. When your edit came onscreen, a bot tag as having a questionable link. I reviewed your edit and talkpage. Another editor had reverted a similar edit. That made my decision easy as your edit was to a blog website probably created by you. That's spam. Ergo, revert. Now, if another editor came along and said, "Hmmm, I wonder Morenooso reverted that?" and did not like my revert, they would have reverted. That didn't happen - did it? Just a little bit of advice - good edits with reliable sources usually stand unless another editor questions the edit on the talkpage and gets consensus to remove that edit with its citation. In your case, which is spam, no other editor is standing up for you.--Morenooso (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? I got reverted four times tonight. Unfortunately for the reverting anonymous IP, who did three of the reverts, it got blocked. I wonder if self-reverting myself the other time counts? Nah!!! --Morenooso (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC

User talk:195.229.236.215

Hi,

I just logged in to wikipedia to look at Vlogs and your vandal warning flashed up. Etisalat, the monopoly telecoms operator in The UAE, uses a proxy server with rotating ISP numbers. This means that anybody (well, I reckon within a 40 block radius - if my IP hit on Urbandead is anything to go by) could have edited the pages you mention. So probably about 20,000 people to chose from).

Just to let you know so that you don't waste your time posting to ghosts.

Right, back to my research - Deadlines and all that. - Celt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.236.215 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Helpme

Hello, I was reading this page, Keystone National High School, and it reads as if self-published. I wanted a second opinion on it. Morenooso 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it as needing a neutral point of view, if you wish to edit it yourself; feel free! Somitho 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it needs work

helpme

I was reading this random page, Arturo Skinner and it reads biased to me. I cited it as having no references but think it needs another citation about narrow POV. Since it concerns a religious figure, I wanted another established editor to give it that citation (if necessary). Morenooso 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked over it, and it seems fine. It is a stub though, and I flagged it as such. Somitho 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Helpme request

This article, Reki (.hack) reads like unadulterated spam or non-sense. I recommend deletion. Wanted a second opinion.

In the future, this sort of thing should probably be tagged for deletion with {{subst:prod|Insert reason here}}. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up

I think you are doing a great job! at least you are interested. please continue. --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

If you have any other questions, I am the one to ask to get complicated theoretical answers. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

I've noticed another admin nailed him as soon as I tried. Anyways, the easiest way to restore the links section is to go back to the working version of the article, copy the links code, then go back to the current version (usually clicking the "article" tab twice) then edit the current version. Happy editing.--w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You did right. I was trying to fix it at the same time. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

California Gold Rush vandalism

Don't worry, I'll semi-protect this article pretty soon. I did a range block to put a temporary stop to the vandalism there but they seem to have swerved around it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember, 3RR doesn't include fixing vandalism so don't worry about that... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Armenian Genocide

Thanks for the message. I went ahead and reverted all the edits. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Morenooso 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR by anon on Armenian Genocide

That sort of editing strikes me as being more vandalism than a content dispute. I've kept a tab open to watch the user, but they seem to have stopped for now. If they pick up again, I'd recommend reporting to WP:AIV -- it's got the fastest turnaround of any of the admin boards, but deals with some very narrow circumstances. WP:AN3 is useful, but filling out the reports is a bit of a pain. x.x Feel free to let me know if you'd like to see how one might be set up, anyway, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 3RR reports are tricky to figure out, but once you get the idea, it's just a bunch of copy-pasting. Normally I recommend going trough {{test1}} through {{test4}} (or the new warnings, if you know about those), although in this case I issued a {{bv}} warning, which is generally acknowledged as an equivalent of {{test4}}. I can't speak for every admin, but I plan to block them if I see another iffy edit. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with vandalism and templates. >_> Past that, not so much, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

100 Pine Center

Hi. Was it necessary to speedy this article? Wouldn't prod have been sufficient? Curiously, William Pietri 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I call 'em how I see them. Morenooso 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that speedying articles containing verifiable facts written by long-time editors is not a good way to see it. As the policy says, "speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content." In the future, could you cut people a little more slack? Thanks, William Pietri 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-Can you give it more time for other editors to improve it instead of tagging it right after it was created? Obviously, not all articles are created as masterpieces. And plus, the article is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website as stated in the speedy deletion template. I don't see any grounds for speedy deletion, since some articles need time for their notability to be stated and improved. Skyscraper Phoenix 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

100 Pine Center article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because in the sentence that states the notability reason the same sentence specifies the types of articles that meet this criteria. 100 Pine Center is an article about an office tower, not mentioned in the sentence. Please give more time to improve the article.Huang7776 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your selection for speedy deletion

Based on your edits and comments, your strict editing style needs to be changed. You cannot tag an article to be deleted just because you see it as insignificant in your point of view. Judge by Wikipedia policy, not your own. If you feel an article is not notable, please contribute to it or allow time for the article to be improved. Since everybody makes mistakes, I hope you learn to go easy on things from now on. Skyscraper Phoenix 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I judge by Wikipedia standards. There must be over 300 buildings in San Francisco. This building is no more notable than any other. To use an analogy, let's say someone was developing a list of condominiums in a given city. One condo is not more notable unless there is good reason. Morenooso 14:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-I think you need understand that not all articles that are insignificant need to be deleted. Instead, use the Importance template to let other users know the article needs their importance to be stated. An article about a building should be deleted if the article is totally useless, such as an advertisement promoting something about a building or spam. Skyscraper Phoenix 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to understand WP:BOLD and that editors have different viewpoints. I do not appreciate your comments as I am not a new user here. Morenooso 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you; you don't seem to understand what I just said.Skyscraper Phoenix 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do and I disagree. Notability is still not established. Morenooso 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Once you've been here a little longer, you'll see that notability is a guideline, and a contentious one at that. The relevant core policies are WP:NPOV and WP:V, which the article in question clearly met, and which speedy candidates don't. I'm all for WP:BOLD, but don't forget to balance that with WP:AGF, WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CON. William Pietri 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been here over one year. Only in the last four months did I register. I have a sincere difference of opinion on its notability and am WP:COOL about it. I will explore it when I have more time later today. Morenooso 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to settle all of this and make it clear, yes, editors have different viewpoints and different styles of editing, your style is unlike my style. However, when it comes to nominating an article for deletion, there are set Wikipedian guidelines for that, and you cannot use your own style or feelings to do that. Believe me, I know when an article is to be speedy deleted and I have done that to my own skyscraper article that was changed into spam (advertisement and copyright violation) by another user. Read the speedy deletion criteria carefully and you will see my article does not fall into the speedy deletion category because it does contain useful information. Just because an article does not state its importance mean that the unimportant article should be deleted. Understand that there are certain types of articles like autobiographies, companies, etc that fall under the speedy delete if they are insignificant. That is because these types of articles are prone to being articles about spam, nonsense, and advertising, like propaganda about yourself, friends ,etc, not building articles. If you still feel that this is the case, then ask an administrator that you want to change the criteria for speedy deletion. In addition, WP:BOLD means to update/improve the article, not to delete it, please read it carefully and do not say I don't understand WP:BOLD. Of course I want to be bold and improve the article, the information that is in the article is all that there is so far on the internet, Emporis.com. It takes time for more information to be revealed. It takes time for an article to be improved and obviously, you did not allow time for the article to be improved by tagging speedy deletion. Please learn to find a balance between being too lax and going overboard in tagging articles for deletion and balance that too with other Wikipedian aspects like WP:COOL; this is the reason why you seem a newcomer, but I like your efforts in anti-vandalism. Skyscraper Phoenix 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not take it as a personal attack. And, you still seem to be making an assumption about me with the points 'bolded in all the revisions (as evidenced by three changes taking more than 15 minutes - and interrupting my activity here and elsewhere) you have made in typing your long response. You seem to forget WP:OWN. In addition, I still have serious notability reservations as I follow several talkpages on my Watchlist about the policy. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY along with the fact that Wikipedia is not a phone book for all the buildings in San Francisco seems to be lost and is just one point of contention. Morenooso 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, do not try argue with me by saying I forget this and that; you and I will go on forever accusing each other for forgetting this. Obviously I am not you so of course I need to make assumptions about you; do not accuse me of making them and actually disprove them instead. Ok, we both went overboard on several Wikipedian aspects, made mistakes and forgot to read several little details; this is the learning curve we all have to face in Wikipedia, so bear with the mistakes instead of accusing. I just wanted to make important points clear to you by editing three times in 15 min. On top of that, go see List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Miami, since you obviously misunderstand that the list and buildings are made to provide info on the building, and I created them with the same purpose in mind. I never intended on the articles to be a part of a directory. This was only a suggestion and you thought I wanted you to seriously change your style. You could have just said "No, I do not want to follow your suggestion + reason" and get it over with. I only suggested that you could become a better editor by not being as serious. You may have become a better editor by listening to other's and/or my comments (that may have sounded like libel to your ears), but too bad, you missed the opportunity to improve yourself. You may go ahead and waste more time by tagging the many 1000's of unimportant articles and stubs with speedy delete, instead of actually improving the article for the benefit of all. I thank you greatly for your misunderstanding of my comments, so I take my now pointless apology back. I am not going to read or reply to any additional comments here, since you feel that I am wasting your time and bothering you greatly, and you probably hate me now. Once again, thank you for being only a great anti-vandal/cleanup machine in my view instead of being a better editor overall and listening to others. I say no more; no hablo más.Skyscraper Phoenix 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you put there are ways to settle this. BTW, WP:BOLD to me means any editor, from the novice to the master has the right as per that article to improve Wikipedia. Everyone has their viewpoints which often are different from one another. You still have convinced me of your article's notability. Now, you be WP:COOL and let my talkpage settle down for awhile. Morenooso 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

re: Iceman (song)

That page needs updating, if anything. "From his FORTHCOMING album Rotten Apple"? Come on.--Dlae 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And January has passed.--Dlae 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content by blanking the page is not the answer as per your action. Morenooso 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Presidents using radio

In my opinion, maybe the best approach would be to only tag presidents that have made significant contributions to radio. Calvin Coolidge broadcast both his political speeches and his inauguration on the radio. He also created the Federal Radio Commission.

FDR used the radio for his fireside chats.

By the way, please register as a participant on the project page. --PhantomS 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Harding trivia to the 1922 in radio article. --PhantomS 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dating?

Sorry for such a trivial little thing but in one of your recent edits, you tagged it with "I hope I'm not dating myself"

-) Look, after several hours of Wikipedia, my brain had gone to mush, and all I could think was.."At least chosing the movie would be easy..." Then I fell about laughing for 5 mins. I tried to explain this to others - they didn't get it. I'm hoping you will and that it'll give you a grin. (Even if it is to think I'm an idiot!) Jacketed 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should bring it up with some friends. We were discussing the Great Depression the other day. Morenooso 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Garland Science

Hi! I removed the speedy tag that you added to this article. Whilst I agree with you that it is unfortunate that this article was apparently created by a representative of Garland Science, I do think that this company is a reasonable subject for an article given that the textbooks that they publish (particularly Molecular Biology of the Cell) are recommended texts for many university courses, and that a number of their authors are well-know scientists. I hope that now I have cleaned the article up a bit you will agree with me that it should stay, but if you don't please send it to AfD. Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I watched what you did after removing the tag and am somewhat impressed. Maybe you could impress upon the author why the Wikipedian community frowns upon self-created edits will suffice. Morenooso 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left a note on Garlandinforma's talk page to back up (and hopefully reinforce) your message about wanting to avoid COIs. —JeremyA (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From my time here on Wikipedia, COI edits are a sure fire way to an AfD. Perhaps your advice with a recommendation to not edit the article (putting comments on the talkpage would be okay or requesting a change through a ticket to the Wikipedia head office) is the best way to go. Morenooso 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder where that link from an anonymous IP to informa came from? Morenooso 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

User:140.211.69.11 just vandalized the The Hype about Hydrogen article. I see that he has received many warnings. Can you block him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Longoria

Hi Morenooso, I am new to wiki and I am interested in Fashion. I have added reference to Eva Longoria so could you check and let me know if that format is ok?

Thanks Julia

You learn quickly. The citation and reference appear good to me. Another good refence for what should be linked to Wikipedia is WP:EL. Reliable sources are your best reference and should be like a footnote a college professor would not challenge. BTW, since you have shown good faith in learning to cite and providing a reference to this article, I am rescinding my warning. Happy editting! Morenooso 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Per this:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Morenooso 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks. Please look at the article's history before putting warnings on other's userpages. Thanks! Real96 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this after seeing what really happened. I tried to rescind it but you had already cleared it. I thought the vandal had come back again in another account. One vandal has done that already on my userpage. My sincere apologies. Morenooso 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am a RC Patrol editor and that is why my page is being struck. Morenooso 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you should NEVER start with a test 4 once a user has vandalized your page for the first time. You should begin with a blatantvandal, then with a test4. When the user has vandalized your page for more than one time (i.e. increments without any reverts, then you should use test4im). Real96 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandals

I don't know if you noticed, but User talk:202.138.157.51 already had a final warning on their talk page. Once {{test4}} is applied and violated, feel free to report the vandal to WP:AIV (already done for this user). John Reaves (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:70.241.232.139

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave him his fourth warning, which indicates a potential blockage, at 19:24Z today and he vandalized the same article right after my warning. The user, who issued the next warning at what appears to be a level one, is the follow-on next warning of vandalism. Morenooso 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all on his talkpage. Here is the diff where I issued the level four delete template. In addition, looking the February 23, 2007 message, this IP received a level four warning then. Its contrib record shows a history of vandalism Morenooso 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide details of the edit made following the final warning. At the moment the last recorded edit in the contributions history is 19:23. Cheers TigerShark 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He made it then. I was on another article and cited him when I reversed the edit. He did two edits on the same article in less than two minutes (one which I reversed and another by another user). If you can't see that, then let's drop it. Morenooso 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What I can see is that the last edit was at 19:23, then you warned them at 19:24. There were no further edits following the final warning at 19:24, so the posting to AIV was a mistake. There is nothing to drop, just please be more careful in future. TigerShark 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis Quinn

Hi, Morenooso. Just wanted to say "thanks" for adding the photo of Francis Quinn as well as the additional information. Looks great.

Craig.borchardt 19 March 2007

Nicely done! Morenooso 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

american question

March 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to American Question. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Morenooso 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the original edit. I was informed by Carolyn Anhalt that the content, a reference to the American Question as "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" though I cited two publications I considered interesting, was not Google's top response to the phrase and therefore was substandard as an encyclopedic reference without acknowledging what was thus perceived as a more valid or common use of the term and therefore diminished the value of Wikipedia, so I removed it.

Reply

Yes I noticed that, after I had placed the speedy. Good catch. RobJ1981 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion: watchables

i'm currently trying to gather more info on the watchables, but resources are few...however, i do think they deserve stub status :)

--Sammarlowe 06:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every article posted on Wikipedia is notable. In addition, another user nominated your article for CSD too. Morenooso 06:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Hamburger

I see that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamburger&diff=prev&oldid=116921566) edit is in good faith but still watch your back whale reverting vandalism. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately a large deletion also occurred. What you see/saw also reflects the multiple edits made by editors trying to combat an aggressive IP that made six edits at last count. Morenooso 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO DELETE Such an important financial figure? Also, is there another way to communicate? I'm knew to wiki.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmoore1948 (talk • contribs)

User:Deon555, who posted the above message, nominated your article for deletion. Quite frankly, I agree with him. Please use a talkpage and not a userpage like you did mine. You need to speak with him but it is now up to an admin to decide. 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

Greetings. What part of WP:ATT do you believe supports your reverts? The applicable language would appear to be around "Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" but in this case the citation is the founder of the project, speaking about the project, on the project. There can be no more of an authoritative source than that. Such statements of intent are usually, and most reliable, taken from the horses mouth so to speak. Do I need to make it more clear in the citation that this is the founder speaking on the project about the project? Thanks for your help, and happy editing. --Gmaxwell 04:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the talkpage. People can say one thing in a blog or even public speech and retract tomorrow. In addition, no mention of an actual change to the license is mentioned - meaning the filing of paperwork to change status. Talking about a business model, which is a direct quote does not equate to a filing either online or with the state the project is licensed in. To use "logic" involves WP:OR which also is not allowed. Morenooso 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded over there on the CZ related points raised.

Here I will respond on your commentary about logic: How do you think the standing policy was created in the first place if not via logic? :) While I agree that sometimes our policies look randomly generated, I can assure you that a fair bit of thought has gone into them. It really is silly to reject a parties claims about themselves and we can't cry WP:OR and hide from that simple fact. WP:OR applies to our content, not to the methods we use to determine our policy. --Gmaxwell 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like the manner used in the Essjay controversy? He invoked logic and credentials too. Morenooso 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can't use logic, we might as well quit now and begin filing papers. Mak (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. I equate using logic like math theorems. Just because you post two truth statements, a false statement based upon logic is still a false statement. Morenooso 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Read Logic. It's the way any human comes to a reasonable and sane conclusion. Without logic we can't come to reasonable and sane conclusions. Mak (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Read proof theory. To invoke "logic" as Mister Spock would sometimes fail as in Amok Time. Morenooso 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about rigid adherence to specific rules to come to a ridiculous conclusion. I'm talking about every-day, normal human thought processes, which of necessity use logic. Logic rejects completely dumb conclusions. Let's not dicker about it any more, just understand that if we reject logic we're really in trouble. Mak (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was specifically mentioned in that article about a change to the non-profit status. Everyday thought processes are what got Wikipedia into trouble with the Essjay controversy. Allowing one user to invoke logic and credentials is not the way this Wikipedia should go. All my actions have been pure and true as a Page Patroller. Morenooso 05:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pure and true, perhaps.. but "innocent" is can often be used condescendingly to imply naivety. In any case, your invocation of Essjay seems quite random to me. No one has invoked credentials. However, you have been using a bogus argument from authority when you use a citation to WP:ATT as the support for your position. In any case, I know you are trying to help, I just believe you are incorrect on this matter. Life goes on. --Gmaxwell 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My invokation of wikilinked policy does not imply naivety. I am quite aware of how Essjay rammed content disputes down the throats of other users upto and including his credentials and admin powers. Morenooso 06:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what do you do on Commons or more correctly your user status? Morenooso 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I knew before I asked that question. I do my research as a Page Patroller. I am not naive. Morenooso 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm busy cramming my status down your throat, why do you have to ask me what my status is? :) If it's not me you're talking about.. who are you talking about? --Gmaxwell 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Healix

I googled Healix and it seems it if it returns several things, but I posted the institute's webpage in case you'd want to know. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was split on the db nocontext or advert. You may decline the CSD if you are so inclined and I will honor your wishes. Morenooso 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Entarians

Thanks for the heads up, they all look like a hoax to me. (I'm reasonably familiar with the history of Koreans in the Russian Far East). The fact that this alleged ethnic group shares a name with a World of Warcraft guild clinches it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entarians. Cheers, cab 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Per WP:HOAX, suspected hoaxes are not speedyable, precisely because they might turn out to be legitimate. In the case of the "Entarians", I highly doubt that they'll turn out to be legitimate, but we need to extend good faith in all directions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. I stand corrected. Morenooso 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I've watchlisted the AfD in case it degenerates further than it already has. Some of those articles bundled in are db-empty candidates, but this kind of thing should probably be treated as one big ugly mess, rather than several small homely ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghetto Cristal

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ghetto Cristal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stlemur 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the article. If you read or understand the title, this is an attack article. The user removed some of the other attack items in article. You should have reviewed the entire article as created. Morenooso 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: re:MikeMcGD

Hi there. As you know, we don't "cancel" or "delete" accounts. Nor we can block users so that they stay away (it is not allowed (check here). I recovered the full history of his talk page, and left a message: if he wants to leave, just log off and never come back. While the page moving around can be considered vandalism, I take it he is just a user who does not know what to do here. Now, I will check the images he has uploaded, which appear to have a wrong license. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Just wanted to accomodate him. Morenooso 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jen Banbury

I have removed the speedy deletion tag from this article, as there is a small claim of notability, thus removing it from the realm of CSD. If you still think the article should be deleted, I would recommend pursuing the articles for deletion process. Thanks! Natalie 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded and rewritten the article significantly. I think the notability is now clear, but the inital claim of being the first to report on abuse at Abu Ghraib is a pretty clear claim of notability. DES ^(talk) 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Expert tag

I'll leave it for the moment, because I'm not interested in an edit war, but your request that I not remove the expert tag from articles I (re-)created isn't backed by any WP policy I'm aware of. Would you return to the article's talk page and name a specific concern you have with the current article? That might be a better way to establish a consensus. Dppowell 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please link the talkpage discussion you mention on Talk:Foclut? I'd like to establish its relevance for myself. Dppowell 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is linked by by posts there. Morenooso 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the notability tag is specious and won't hold up to scrutiny, so I'm not concerned about that. However, neither of your responses (here or on the article's talk page) make any sense. Please clarify yourself. Failing that, I'd like a link (or better yet, a diff) that satisfactorily explains your use of the "expert tag" and your substantiates your contention that I may not remove the tag from an article I created. Dppowell 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't do "specious". I review quite a few articles. If it is found to be notable, no harm no foul. You might want to review WP:OWN. Morenooso 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You referred to a historical location referenced by Saint Patrick and numerous scholars as "fictional," and placed the tag based on that characterization. A published, third-party source is referenced, which is what is required to establish notability. I'm not WP:OWNing the article; I created it in response to a request from another editor. You promptly arrived and placed contentious tags on it without citing any reasons for your actions. I stand by my actions. Dppowell 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:Expert-subject indicate that you should "start a section on the article discussion page describing what you wish the expert to address." Please proceed on Talk:Foclut at your earliest convenience. Dppowell 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was originally a much longer and rather dubious one under another title, & not by Dppowell at all. I placed a notice on the St Patrick talk page asking that it be looked at "by someone who knows". This has now happened; the article is far shorter, properly written & has a good-quality reference. As far as I am concerned, attention from an expert is what it has had. I don't belive notability is an issue either. You comments are unneccessarily cryptic and rather odd - what makes you think the location is "fictional"? I will remove the tag. If you want to add it again you should explain clearly on the talk page what issues you believe the article has. Johnbod 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kiernan-sear

I've given the user a last warning. A black should be deterring enough. Circeus 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the records, Blerds is title-protected.Circeus 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're on top of it!!! Morenooso 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your AIV post

Hi there, Morenooso. I've given Toa Mario one last warning on this one. He seems a bit confused about all this, so I'm giving one more chance; definitely let or another admin know if there's trouble. I'm not convinced this falls under A1, though, so I have not deleted the article. The reason is that this article seems to me to have enough context to be a stub, even though it has little content (from WP:CSD: "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub.") So I think this isn't quite valid for speedy (though it could likely be deleted through other methods). Anyway, that's what I've done for now. We can discuss further if you wish. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Understand. Morenooso 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Though, looking at it again, this one is really dang close to being unacceptable even for a stub. I'm going to add the speedy tag again so another admin can decide. Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of the school. And, an internet search gets no hits. The school may also be under construction. Morenooso 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

adolescent sexuality

It was my intent to remove that content - i moved it to a new article. See the talk page for detals. I hope you don't mind, but I am goign to revert back to the way I had it. --Illuminato 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you read the talk, you will see that there is consensus that the content formerly there is more about behaviors than ad. sexuality itself. My new page for ad. sexuality is a cleaner version of the consensus page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminato (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree on your talkpage where other editors have disagreed with you too. In addition, I disagreed on the article talkpage. Morenooso 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Moorematthews 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mammary intercourse

Where is the explanation for your revert? Joie de Vivre 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Backmasking

Please go ahead with the promised cleanup. Λυδαcιτγ 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you still have issues with the sources or external links? Λυδαcιτγ 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am still reviewing them one at a time. --Morenooso 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aargh. OK. I'd appreciate if you could do so as quickly as possible, as I am itching to get some more eyes for the article from Peer Review, but I'd rather not do so with big OR and cleanup tags on top of the page. Λυδαcιτγ 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DJ Fratoni

Just to let you know, I do support you adding the SPD tag on this article, and I suppose it'll be gone soon. Samuel Tarling (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Fratoni. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I can't believe that it was saved by another user. When I looked at that user's history record, it appeared that he likes to preserve articles that have very little worth to being on Wikipedia. It's one thing to keep noteworthy stuff but self-generated ego pieces should not be preserved unless someone like Michaelango is writing them. Morenooso (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad Hominem edit

Recently i edited the page Ad Hominem, you reverted my change, which i feel was an error. Wikipedia can be known for being somewhat intellectually aloof, and my edit (providing another example of Ad Hominem) was designed to further ellaborate the meaning, thus widening the audiance that would understand the concept of Ad Hominem. If you feel that certian people are not worthy of this knowledge, please do not replace my edit. If, however, you were to do this, it would only further prove the point that Wikipedia has become an esoteric and elitist internet subsociety. I beg of you, do not continue on this route to the hyppocricy of an elitist encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.153.253 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not editted that page to the best of my knowledge. If I revert a page, it is because an error was made and needs to be corrected. Morenooso (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the future

When you bring an issue to someone's talk page, please indicate where the problem is. Even after your second comment, I have no idea which article you were discussing. Thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please sign

Please sign ALL talk pages using four tilde's (~~~~. Rklawton (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not all perfect and I've been here a while - trust me!--Morenooso (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting vandals

Thanks for the info, but just so you know for the future, the proper venue for reporting is at AIV. Take care. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mucho gracias.

Your recent reverts

I would appreciate if you show some interest in the subject before reverting anonymous editors out of mistrust simply because of the fact some of us value our own privacy. Reverting a perfectly valid edit and directing me to the sandbox was utterly inappropriate. --86.23.36.202 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you place information that does not follow normal Wikipedian standards, I can almost guarantee that your work will be reverted. I am willing to bet that the citation you found will be overturned for a number of reasons mostly because it does address Mussolini's alleged hatred.

The funny thing, if you follow my history of revisions, with the exception of one or two, all have stood and other editors routinely revert back to one of my edits. As a page patroller, editors get a sense of "who gets it right".--Morenooso (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Gallegos

Many thanks for improving the article about Bishop Gallegos. I start articles about various Roman Catholic bishops and read about Bishop Gallegos up for canonization so I thought that would be a good article-RFD (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, more information needs to be put into his article.--Morenooso (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary

It was Paul Harvey. Useight (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am fighting a migrane which is diminishing my mental computing power. I'm lucky to be able to walk and chew gum at the moment.--Morenooso (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet it was this Harvey. . .--Morenooso (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel well soon. Useight (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Went out for lunch and brought home a doggy bag. Getting out of my truck, I pull out a bag of trash. Guess which bag went into the dumpster? Thanks.--Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Thanks 940th Wing is an orphan only to the extent that it has two incoming links and a few dozen incoming redirects. The tag was added by WP:AWB and fits the criteria for orphans. Please respond on my talk if you have anything more to say. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another editor disagreed with you as well. --Morenooso (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

hiyack07 Sockpuppet case closed

This Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07 case was closed. Here is what I wrote:

Here are my full observations: highyack07's case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07 came to my attention because of an edit he made to Ronald Reagan's article. In the infobox, he inserted the name, Train, for which he has some affinity. At the same time, he did a redirect which was complicated for me to follow but one I finally figured out. After seeing his userpage, which was where the redirect went, I was mortified. I left a warning on his talkpage with a note to any Admin seeing my warning to take a look at his userpage. Sure enough, an Admin saw it, cited BLP issues and blocked him. Then another user, George Sterner re-editted the blocked userpage of highyack07. When I saw that another page patroller, Ten Pound Hammer had caught one of George's edits, I mentioned on his talkpage that I thought George was a sockpuppet of highyack07. Ten Pound Hammer looked at what I wrote, followed the trail and then filed the sockpuppet case.

Today George editted his userpage to reflect the Train persona/thoughts/characters as depicted on highyack07's userpage. This just about convinced me that he is the sockpuppet of highyack07. When I noticed today that he had removed the sockpuppet tag on his userpage, I restored the tag and issued him a maintenance tag warning. A short time later an anonymous IP, User:69.122.40.229 blanked George's userpage. This led me to believe that since George got a level four warning, he logged out and then blanked the page. I issued a warning to the anonymous IP, tagged it with the sockpuppet tag and then added my observations to highyack07's sockpuppet case.--Morenooso (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) --Morenooso (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

highyack07 is back. While patrolling recent changes I just saw a User:Train12 pop up and his userpage is a direct reflection of highyack07's userpage. I will put the sockpuppet tag on his userpage.--Morenooso (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Train12 just got blocked. I have a feeling highyack07 will be back. Since he used Train12, I wonder if there are other TrainXX or highyackXX users?--Morenooso (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how this user is able to relog on? He must be using some kind of virtual IP or other means to mask how he is getting back here. As my Dad used to say, "I bet dollars to donuts" he will be back. When my Dad said that or bet, you never took the bet because he didn't like to lose.--Morenooso (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you know? Another anon IP showed up today and re-editted one of the pages. --Morenooso (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot to it...

...but I'm willing to put it back up with an "underconstruction" template. Feel free to add the other templates after I do...only be a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best.--Morenooso (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt.  :) It's back under the proper capitalization and I look forward to seeing how it turns out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Aw man, now the pressure's on.--Morenooso (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwaa-haa-haaa! Another gruesome kill as the cabal claims its latest victim! But seriously: Rabbi Meir Don Plotzky awaits your tender ministrations. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• You gave it your best shot; it is really up to the original author to come up with at least a useable stub. This doesn't really qualify, but we'll see if he/she takes and runs with it. Signing off...see you round! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The proof will be in the pudding. Thanks for believing in this article.--Morenooso (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Morenooso, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Morenooso. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopening an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07

Hi there Morenooso, just posting to let you know that I've submitted a new SPI case for this user as per your request on various user talk pages. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think the sockmaster is done. He has too big an ego if you look at how he has editted his userpages to reflect Robert McNamara (he seems to like just one pic of RM and not the one that shows up in the WikiCommons link) as Train with a redirect on Ronald Reagan's page as his VP. This guy is good too. He knows how to manipulate templates. I don't understand how he built his sockpuppet userpage, Train12, so quickly and with the templates he used. Plus I am not sure if he tried to use a template to unblock Train12. This guy has great Wikipedia editting skills. Too bad he uses them for the Dark Side of the Force.--Morenooso (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

Hello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Zhang He's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Zhang He (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for talkbacks. I have your usertalk page on Watch. As per standard Wikipedia editors, wherever a conversation is started is where the conversation should stay.--Morenooso (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Somos El Mundo

And just what is wrong with it? "Talk:Somos El Mundo" - Talk:We Are the World includes {{Disaster management}}, it is even rated as "mid-importance".

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Feel free to add it back. My bad! --Morenooso (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Globalingual, deletion tagging

Hey! I noticed that you tagged Globalingual for A7. Technically, A7 is limited to non-notable people, groups, companies, web content and animals. Although it's frustrating, A7 can't properly be used for neologisms, and you need to use a PROD or AfD. Some admins are more stringent than others, but it's generally best to jump through the hoops in cases like these. I've gone ahead and added a PROD tag to the article. —LedgendGamer 07:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Too bad there isn't a Speedy Delete for that type article. I thought about using the transwiki SD but decided to go with A7 as most Admins cite that one. Oh well, live and learn. Hopefully your PROD will do the trick! --Morenooso (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the IP starts putting up a real fight, you'll have to move on to AfD. No admin would block a user for removing PROD templates unless it was clearly in bad faith. I once had to send an article to AfD because it was non-notable art. It would be nice if there was a speedy criteria for material that violates WP:DICDEF or non-notable neologisms, but there's too many problems waiting to happen there. It looks like you've dissuaded it, though, so we just have to wait. —LedgendGamer 07:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a legimate difference in the removal of maintenance tags. Along with other page patrollers I know and follow, we will do two reverts and stay away from the 3RR type situation. But I know what you're saying. It kind of amazes me that vandals sometimes seem to have more rights than legimate users trying to keep Wikipedia free of articles like these. How does that line go in Stairway to Heaven? --Morenooso (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And, recently I even declined a Speedy Delete. But the real difference is that I explained my action in a reasonable manner in my edit summary and then discussed the issue on the article talkpage. It's one to say, "Declined" and give a reason; it's another to remove a tag and then be given a warning about removing tags (as I did with the anon IP).--Morenooso (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think one of the reasons vandals seem to have more rights than us is that we're directly accountable for our actions, and there's always the threat of someone taking it the wrong way. We always have WP:IAR, but most applications of the policy are limited to administrators - deleting pages outside of discussion when they clearly need to be deleted, blocking users without the standard procedure, so on and so forth. Although we insist that WP is not a bureaucracy, there are certainly bureaucratic elements present. As far as classifying PROD and speedy templates as maintenance, I personally think it's a bit of a stretch but it certainly works. —LedgendGamer 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(RESET INDENT) Agreed. Sometimes I hate having to be rational in trying to be consistent with my edit summaries and what I say and do on articles and/or user talkpages. They can rage and do stuff that as my Dad used, "One toe over the line and your behind is mine" and get away with it. Me, I do that and I bet I get swatted like a fly.--Morenooso (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Ignore all rules. Still, this goes back to my Dad's reasoning: "Step outta line and you're all mine." Trust me, you never ignored all rules with him.--Morenooso (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It just went under A7. I wonder if I have any bubbly on ice?--Morenooso (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just in time to prove my point about there being different kinds of admins. I guess the bottom line is that the article was deleted. —LedgendGamer 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of warmed the fireplace so to speak. And, like the deleted article just below this section just another memory. My Watchlist is becoming a series of red wikilink deleted articles.--Morenooso (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Clean-up

I have hopefully cleaned up some or all of the GTA-NeXt Network page. Regards; Joker264 (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't get any better than this. . .--Morenooso (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Constellations recreation

Yeah, it happens. Some people simply don't get it. I get reamed by people whose articles I rightfully delete and then there are others who seem to think that they have a right to post whatever they want, so they ignore everyone's concerns. Looks like it's still gone at this point, but if it comes back and I'm online, he's going to be taking a break from editing.  :) Thanks for the alert. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why they just don't build a myspace or facebook page. There they can say everything and anything they want about themselves. I guess most figure that if their stuff doesn't stick on Wikipedia, they could have been a contender.--Morenooso (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Adel abdul rahman

Hello Morenooso. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adel abdul rahman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "received several awards and commendations" and written several books are assertions of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

No problem. I removed it from another article, though I can't recall what one. This personally determined award is user-created and does lack notability. No way to figure out how he or she arrived at the winner. Of course, that's my main complaint with the Golden Raspberry Awards. Anyone who cares to spend $10 can vote and there's no official oversight on the voting process so effectively, the site owner can pick his own choice for winners. Those sorts of awards have no place amongst legitimate industry and critical awards. Gives me the willies! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink leads to JoBlo.com here on Wikipedia. I agree you totally that there is no oversight, much less governors or a reputable accounting firm that tally and certify the winners. But like GRA you mention, eventually with time I feel that they will stick if they last long enough.--Morenooso (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is all the more reason why that these mentions must be removed. The only reason Razzies are here at all is the owner managed to scare up some decent press. There is still no legitimacy to the "awards" themselves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but Wikipedian policy and processes must be followed. --Morenooso (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it but I'm not completely confident that it will be deleted. JoBlo tends to be a recognized name and I fear others will vote keep. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kulture Shock

Hi Morenooso. Just for your information, I did not believe this qualified as patent nonsense. But it was a copyright violation. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Seems you know your stuff!--Morenooso (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

eaglestrike9

Thank you.

I've already given him a level 4 warning, and I'm new to these kinds of things, so what would be done next?--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You could report him at the Vandals board (WP:ANI).--Morenooso (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It can take a while. Plus, when I reviewed that user's talkpage, your warnings went from Level 1 to Level 4. Usually they are progressive but I decided to cap yours with another Level 4 to emphasize the point.--Morenooso (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Friends? :P--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem!--Morenooso (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Ziemann

I started the Bishop Ziemann article after the bishop died of cancer. He was involved in some scandals that were brought up during his life time and were mentioned in his obituary. I had problems with the wording about this so I left it out. The anon editor was right but did not sourced it hence the reason you removed it. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced edits are never good in any article I watch. I have several that even with a citation, editor like to try to sneak unsourced opinions or comments. Everything that goes into an article needs to be sourced otherwise it is subject to removal. --Morenooso (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks. I was not aware of that. Now looking see prior deletions in log. Was busy googling trying to find sources. Seems pretty but not notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

She is at best a two bit actress (no degradation meant). Hollywood is full of actors and actresses who don't have articles on Wikipedia. Now, if she had a major role, or was nominated for an Academy Award - that would be notability. --Morenooso (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. And just noticed that you prefer to keep conversations on the initial talk page. Sorry. (Also note that the notability standard is much lower than what you describe above. WP:BIO is much weaker than "major role, or was nominated for an Academy Award"). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers which is more restrictive. On your talkpage, I threw the generalities I keep in the back of my mind when I look at an article like hers. She does fit any of those restrictions.--Morenooso (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI

The case you filed has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actress1985. Thank you, –MuZemike 06:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This was the first one I filed. --Morenooso (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another anonymous IP who may be a sockpuppet - user:69.122.40.229 who also editted the article. --Morenooso (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:KarenCasting may be another sockpuppet. --Morenooso (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? I clicked the edit button and presto/change-o was able to add KarenCasting to the case. This should be on the front page tomorrow. --Morenooso (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

HI

Thank you so much for explaining that I was so confused. I left you this message below. Hi I am so sorry I am not certain at all how to do the talk or respond. I hope I am doing this right and not messing up something. I apologize my actress friend sno e blac who was also in the film american asian with me is on here and updated my page yesterday for me. and I guess it got deleted. I do not have a my theatrical resume on IMDB I just got a 15day trial for the pro account so thats why it looks blank like that lol. You can see me in 944 los angeles magazine. Makes and Models national magazine 3covers and cover 50 top models. and also Fhm. I am the spokes model for mwa. and also have just shot n international pageant dress catalog and cosmetic catalog . American Asian my independent film is airing internationally and set to be released in usa this year. Finale made best horror independent this year there is many references on this. also solved is on amazon and investigation networks. tlc.dicovery. I also did fight for fame for e. entertainment and human giant for mtv as well as worked with american idol corey clark on vh1. I hosted Hollywood show with paris hilton. and just signed with an exclusive film agency. I hope this helps. Someway copies of most of the movies clips and magazines are online. And I will be doing a show on oxygen this month. Thank You again. I apologize for any inoconvience as I am not sure how to exactly use this or what to do. Obviously I am not as smart as the editors and patrols on here. Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actress1985 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone translate this for me? Unfortunately, in a nutshell your article is not notable. Live with it. Maybe in time you will be famous. If so to paraphrase MT, when you become famous others will write about you. Nothing personal but tell your friends (as if I believe that) to give it a rest. --Morenooso (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My advice - stick to facebook or myspace until you get famous. --Morenooso (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

also

also you can see photos of me and video clips on Bravotv. and check out online clothing sales for my new line in spring thank you again. Actress1985 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my being frank but not interested. Listen, when you become famous as Mark Twain put it, people will write about you. By that time, a legimate editor here on Wikipedia will create a page for you. By that time, chances are you won't care if you have a page here. Trust me that Wikipedia is not interested in your article because it was Speedy Deleted again. Work on your acting; get bigger parts and eventually if you stay in the game, you will arrive. --Morenooso (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

replied to "just so you know"

here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aw man, Merlin Olsen died. . .

A true Ram. A true man. Time to watch Little House on the Prairie. Good night, sweet prince. . .--Morenooso (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing him again with Dick Enberg is priceless! --Morenooso (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Hello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{Eagle4000 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

monroe

I will put the page on my watchlist. - Altenmann >t 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was Speedy Deleted again today. --Morenooso (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

St. John the Baptist Catholic Church

Thanks for the remark :-) Do you work much with the GA process? I've only ever taken one article, Southworth House (Cleveland, Ohio), to GA review (it passed :-) so I don't know much about it. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I visit pages in the course of my wiki travels and rate them for multiple wikiprojects. When I run across one that has the question marks, I get really intrigued and feel like a dog who wants to leave his mark (so to speak). I was really impressed by that article and that is the highest rating I have ever given. The fact that it was a FA also factored in. Articles don't get to be a FA unless they're good. Keep up the good work. --Morenooso (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I had a friend here who used to do copyedits to bring up articles to GA. He really had a great copyedit work ethic that I have rarely seen since. It was like watching Michaelango groom your hair - knowing that he would make you a masterpiece. --Morenooso (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ratings. I'm curious, however: why rate St. Augustine's and St. John's the same, since St. John's is a much more extensive article? Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From my POV, they are pretty much the same. Both were FA and fairly full of just everything someone would need to know if they visited the articles. It's the ummph or extra copyedits/material that will push these articles over-the-top to get GA status. For as even per your edit summary, you admitted that work still remains to be done on the extensive article. I caught one or two things I would change but that's MOS type edits. It's the tweaking of the wikilinks to get the most accurate and best ones. It's making sure the refs are current and up to date. It's making sure each paragraph reads the best they can. I could go on but you can click on the quality scale to see what GA really entails. Since you've had one GA, I would imagine you can put both over-the-top - especially if you tell the wikiprojects you want copyedittors to help. --Morenooso (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that both lack information on the recent history of the parishes and the interiors of the buildings, but I've used all of my sources as much as possible, so I don't see how they can be sufficiently comprehensive. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try to find a GA status diocese or archdiocese by clicking on the cats at the bottom of your article. I haven't run across a GA class yet. The other way would be to visit the Catholic wikiproject and find several through them (the portal is one of the wikiprojects on the talkpage). You might even have to ask on one of their pages for recommendations. The other way is to use the GA article you say you built and find other GA class articles and then try to take from the best.

Typically when I rate wikiprojects, I open the state or bio wikiproject class scale to see what I am looking for and grading against. I can grade Start or Stub in my sleep. It's when you start to move up to B that the harsh blinders come on.

While it's not quanitity but quality, when you move up to GA - the quantitative copyedits are what will put the article over the top. That's when you want to bring in outside eyes to basically take apart the article and rework into the GA class. As I mentioned previously, I had a friend who was part of the copyedit task force (I think it's a TF). When you've taken the article as far as you can, then you want to go to their TF and request assistance to bring it up to GA. --Morenooso (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't digested this fully but here is info on GA: Wikipedia:Good article criteria and even Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. As you can see in the second wikilink, GA and FA are very close but GA is the higher status and achieved by the review process whereas FA is selected. There is a detailed process at the bottom of that page Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Somewhere in all those articles I even saw there are trainees to identify GA's. All of these pages link off the main page [[Category:WikiProject_Good_articles]]. As I surmised there is a Task Force and it's linked off that page as well. For the average bear like me, my ratings factor in but it's up to the regular article editor(s) and creator to seek the next plateau (GA). --Morenooso (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Curious about your comment — how does the California church remind you of the one I wrote about? And what's a pastoral region? Is it a sort of hierarchy between the parish and the diocese? I've always been a member of a Presbyterian denomination, so I don't have very much experience with Catholic church government. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is relatively new to me too. Because Wikipedia does not have article on it, my guess that it is a region of a large diocese that is administered by auxiliary bishop. The LA archodiocese is the only one I know that has one although it seem like the Philly one should have one too. In essence, it is a Ecclesiastical province over which the AB is its pastor so to speak. In this cases, the cardinal is showing that he has extreme confidence in the AB because he set them over a region of churches and an area that could encompass a small diocese. --Morenooso (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:-) I was about off to bed (it's only 6 AM here, and time for me to get up to go to a special event) and didn't have time for much. Going to Jedi came from seeing a link on someone's talk. Anyway, Mummy Cave was identified less than 55 years ago, so there won't be any PD-because-of-age images that intend to show it, and any sufficiently old images are quite unlikely to say anything about having the cave in them. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was kidding with you. I see Native Americans occupied the cave. Cool. We all wiki-sidetracked so to speak. . .

Look at my userpage: you'll see that I don't own a television, so Letterman is out of the question. I'm not clear about your reference to the California church — my comments were intended to say "these churches have never served as cathedrals or co-cathedrals". Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your userpage. Wow, no TV!!! My reference to the church is that while the Ohio churches have never been pro-cathedrals, their distinct look is reflected in other churches like the one I pointed out to you. Sorry if I have been dense. The western settlers carried many things with them that they recreated here in California. When I saw the pics, I said where have I seen that church before? I have several and usually they are larger ones like the link I sent you. --Morenooso (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you meant; I thought you were suggesting that they were perhaps pro-cathedrals. And yes, I'm an admin, but why are you afraid? If I weren't an admin, and you'd said something worthy of administrative wrath, I would have posted a note at WP:ANI, where even more people would see it and be angry :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't put the best foot forward (although I try). And, you never know how some people will take things you say, do or even how you edit. I think our relationship has been positive but then again up until a week ago I had a bad cold followed by a nasty throat infection. The past month healthwise has been the best for me and at times I have been in a haze. Usually, I check out userpages but my radar must have been down with you which is a compliment.

Still, I have kept my wits about me with razor sharp. --Morenooso (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Phila Archdioc

You made a great start for the history section! I've added some more info and named the footnote, as it will be used a lot, I'm sure. Have a wonderful weekend. We're supposed to get torrential rains tomorrow. At least it won't be snow. This was a record snow season for Philly — the first time we've gotten more than one 13-inch snowfall in the same season — after several mild winters. Fortunately, the rain won't trigger any mudslides, unlike California. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a very minor hand and just wanted to help improve your article. If you make some of the suggested improvements, your article should move up in status. It is C level now and could B soon. --Morenooso (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my article. Someone else started it. I've just made several revisions, as I do to various articles I encounter in my Wiki travels. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would never had known as it has your fingerprints all over it. Nice to know other wikitravellers take up interest in good articles. --Morenooso (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA

Hello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagle4000 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

all out inclusionist?

Naw... not all out. There are many articles that hit AFD that are absolutely unsavable, and I will happily !vote for their deletion and offer my reasons why I agree they should be deleted. I suppose I am seen as extreme because I am willing to actually dig for sources and have been successful at saving some of the more borderline cases. Thanks for your encouragement and for offering perspective. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't view you that way. But, that seems to be why some of the Admins turned against you Thursday/Friday. On Wednesday, you looked like a lock for getting a mop.

However, I meant that question as an example of a question that is a double edged sword. Handle it with grace and you come out ahead. Reply too quickly and in anger or with strong words and you do yourself harm. You will be an Admin. . . --Morenooso (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Carleton North High School

I removed {{db-same}} from Carleton North High School. This school is in the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Carleton Place High School is in the province of Ontario. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. --Morenooso (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statements

I haven't made an incorrect statement to my knowledge. If you point me at more specific guidance than "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." I'd love to see it. With that language, it isn't as clear cut as you make it out. As I said, if someone could find a specific statement by the Canadian government affirming that it recognized Nelly Furtado as a dual citizen (not a general statement about dual citizenship, not a law about dual citizenship, but a specific statement about Nelly Furtado), nothing in MOS:BIO would prohibit its use.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overstating your case, but in this case it makes no difference: no one has found a statement from the Canadian government for us to evaluate. If they did, it may well be a fourth example. I'm very familiar with the problem with the Nelly Furtado article, have reset the nationality to "Canadian" dozens of times, and have fought the same argument with this IP that you have.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. And I guess you didn't read the top of my talkpage and the subsequent messages I left on yours. --Morenooso (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And no, I'm not overstating it either. Rules are rules for a reason. If we don't follow the guidelines, Wikipedia would degenerate to I think this article should be editted this way because I feel it should. --Morenooso (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

James Belushi

According to your reference to wiki policy (Mos Bio), ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. I am mentioning his ethnicity, because he claims it in many interviews that he is Albanian, furthermore he received the Albanain honorary citizenship. Being Albanian-American clearly defines him. Let's not edit-war: I believe that mentioning his Albanian ethnicity is exactly according to wikipolicy. --sulmues (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, MOS BIO does not allowing thinking in this edit. Only the nationality at time of notability may be used in the opening lead. You need to see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph which has specific examples and is followed for consistency. Part of the problem in this case is the statement, he claims. With some nationalities, claiming to be one nationality is different from what MOS BIO states. Hope this helps. --Morenooso (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I referred to the second paragraph: Ethnicity. But since you are referring to the nationality, the policy specifically mentions that nationality at the time of notability may be mentioned in the leading paragraph. Now, he has both citizenships as of present (American and honorary Albanian). Shouldn't we say that he is Albanian-American right now, when he is notable? I know this is a tough sell, but in Albania the honorary citizenship is given to very few people and he is one of them. Being an ambassador of Albania in the United States clearly defines him. --sulmues (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Still no. This battle has been fought and why the examples exist. Only one nationality is allowed. Honorary citizenship as given to him definitely seals the deal. Chances are he received it after becoming famous. Regardless, a notable person can be X, Y and Z as per the example. If Z is the nationally at the time of notability, the Z is the only nationally allowed in the lead paragraph as per MOS BIO.

Anonymous IPs have been blocked for edit-warring on this issue. --Morenooso (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Patrick Biography

Hey man, just saw that you removed my biography regarding St. Patrick. I read the external link section and I am guessing you nixed it due to it being on a blog. Apologies. Did you have a chance to read it? I think it adds to the links and page content well as an external link. It is well researched...I do know that the wiki needs to be watched carefully this week so I appreciate your work here. If you have time to read the essay I think you will find it has value. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidMonaghan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources as per the link what not to link here. --Morenooso (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Belinda (entertainer)

Belinda has always been referred to as "cantante mexicana" and self-claims herself as such, so it's safe to assume she is a Mexican citizen. She was raised in Mexico and began her career there as well. In addition, she was nominated in the Best New Artist from Mexico category in an Award Show from her birth country Spain, so that's another reason to assume she is a Mexican citizen. Lancini87 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims is not good enough. Even though she was raised there, which I know about, I sincerely doubt she has taken out Mexican citizenship. Being nominated Mexican by Spain isn't good enough either. Sorry to be obtuse, but I have sincere doubts as I have done considerable searches on her and have followed her career for quite a while. She did the Cheetah thing in Spain and said contrary things like it was great to be back in her home country. --Morenooso (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this is the prideful kind of country claiming someone as its own, cantante mexicana as does Nelly Furtado, James Belushi etal. In Mexico every female artist seems to have a nickname. She probably got this one because she grew up there. --Morenooso (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

However, she began her career as a child, and most likely obtained citizenship before becoming famous. It's not like other foreign grown celebrities who receive permits to work in the country. Belinda grew up there. Perhaps she has dual citizenship, but there is no doubt that one of them is Mexican; Mexico has been Belinda's home all her life. Lancini87 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, she was born in Spain - of that there is no doubt; ergo she has Spanish citizenship. I remember a while reading an article that pointed out the discrepancy somewhat in that while she grew up in Mexico, the whole business with her name being Peregrín Schüll that she prefered initially to go with her mom's name which is contrary to Spanish naming customs. The Mexican credits departments had a hard time with that because they would list her as being Belinda Peregrín. That's when she decided to drop her last name to become just Belinda. --Morenooso (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, since it's common for Mexican child actors to be credited simply by their first name. It's the same case with Anahi, Dulce Maria, Imanol, Danna Paola and so on. By the way, we too use the Spanish naming customs in Mexico. Nonetheless, she is Mexican. Whenever she is referred to as such, she never corrects them and says she's Spanish. In fact, she takes pride and says it's great that more of "us Mexicans" are gaining international recognition. Lancini87 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading the post. It concerns which name was used for her full name credit. She now has no problems going with her first name which is why she made the switch. And, the MOS BIO is specific about which country gets credit. Unless you have a source saying she had Mexican citizenship, it should read Spain. I know because I see this in lots of articles I follow.

I really don't care which way it goes, I just want to see the correct one listed. Just because she says, "us Mexicans" is not proof enough. A reliably third party source saying she has dual citizenship would be. --Morenooso (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Paradise Lost

Hi Morenooso, I've replied to your post at Talk:Paradise Lost. Paul August ☎ 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this on that talkpage. I obviously have on my Watchlist. --Morenooso (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we deal with my other edits, can you please explain why you reverted my last edit [1]. Are you sure that you want "a divine spirit" to link to Satan??? Paul August ☎ 01:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I asked you to get consensus before making any more deletions. When an editor is asked for consensus they are obliged to discuss what their intent is on a talkpage and get consensus there. --Morenooso (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually believe that Milton's muse was Satan? Look, I think you might be confused. Because of your edits the article now contradicts itself, identifying Miltons' Muse as the Holy Spirit AND as Satan. Neither identification is justified, but at least the identification with the Holy Spirit, has scholarly support, I can assure you that the identification with Satan has none. While we can discuss the former (on the talk page), let's at least agree to delete the link to "Satan". It is embarrassing to let this bit of apparent vandalism — added by an IP yesterday: [2] — stand. Paul August ☎ 12:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Morenooso (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Modernist has removed that link [3]. Two editors have now supported my edits on the Talk:Paradise Lost. Do you still object to my changes? Paul August ☎ 14:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would still rather see a new section developed that does a good pro and con NPOV of what you suggest.--Morenooso (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pro and Con what? Paul August ☎ 14:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes you suggest as my input on the talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Let's be clear. One of the things I'm suggesting is that we remove the assertion in the article that Milton's "Heavenly muse" muse is the Holy Spirit. You are suggesting that we leave that assertion in the article as is? And then add another section somewhere else that says but maybe not? That makes no sense to me. Paul August ☎ 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting who the muse was. However, before the deletions occurred, the article was okay. Who really knows what Milton was talking about? Arguments both for and against can be found (the pro and the con). In a separate section all this can be fleshed out in NPOV fashion. I think you are wrapped around the axle trying to assert points which would not do the article justice. --Morenooso (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think the muse was the Holy Spirit why do you want the article to say that it was? I agree with you that no one really knows what Miton was talking about, so why do you insist upon leaving the assertion that the muse was the Holy Spirit in the article? Paul August ☎ 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the muse was the Holy Spirit. See, that is where you get wrapped around the axle. And I have stated my opinion here and on the article talkpage. We are covering nothing new. --Morenooso (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you said the muse was the Holy Spirit. What I said was that the article says that, and you object to me removing that assertion from the article, I'd like to know why? Paul August ☎ 17:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And, I have said your deletions appear to have a POV nature to them which why I object to them. --Morenooso (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Look I'm having a very hard time following what you say. You say that you don't necessarily think that the muse is the Holy Spirit, but you say that removing that assertion from the article is POV. That makes no sense. Why are you insisting that the article say that the muse is the Holy spirit? Paul August ☎ 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You did more than just that one deletion. In total, they became POV in nature and you are displaying WP:OWN about these edits. You need to sit back, relax and not tie me up on my talkpage. One man's Satan is another muse's holy spirit. --Morenooso (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My other deletion was to remove the sentence: "The poet claimed that a divine spirit inspired him during the night, leaving him with verses that he would recite in the morning." My reason for that (as I explained on the talk page) is that I think this reads as asserting that Milton meant that the poem was literally written by a "divine spirit" an assertion that I don't think any scholarly source supports. I don't see how that edit together with my other edit deleting the the assertion that the muse is the Holy Spirit amount to some POV. At any rate the two edits are independent and can be dealt with separately. So I ask again: Why are you insisting that the article say that the muse is the Holy spirit? Paul August ☎ 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the dust off my last post is not more than 20 minutes and you're back. Your keys words are I think this. That's Wikipedia:No original research and you are trying now to backtrack your POV edits. Please consider taking a wiki-break. --Morenooso (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you tried to explain what POV you think my edits represent? Paul August ☎ 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They were explained on the talkpage and are all over this paragraph because you keep going around in circles. You really need to take a wiki-break and let go of this article. 19 minutes since my last post. . . --Morenooso (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this discussion. You say you've explained why my edits are POV but I don't see that anywhere that you've done that, (care to provide diffs)? You have accused me of WP:OR, and WP:OWN for simply wanting to remove unsupported assertions of fact from the article. I've provided an authoritative source on the talk page which contradicts that assertion that the muse is the Holy Spirit. More can be provided. Two editors seemingly agree with my edits on the talk page. And you yourself, the only editor to object to the removal of that assertion, have said that you do not think that the muse is the Holy Spirit, and in fact that no one "really knows what Milton was talking about". I think then that there is sufficient consensus for removing these assertions. But for now I have simply added the "dubious" tags to the article. Paul August ☎ 19:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've added an OR tag to the article, with the edit summary that "OR is being used to advance deletions" [4]. Are you referring to my adding the "dubious" tags? How is that OR? I think you are confused. You should re-read WP:OR. Paul August ☎ 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)