This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morenooso. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You have new messagesHello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"
! style="background:#efefef;" | You could use
! style="background:#ffdead;" | wiki table formatting
|-
! style="background:#cceecc;" to create
! style="background:#eeaacc;" your own
|}
Thank you, very much! I worked on some of the articles as I saw the AfDs coming up. I realize that the nominating editor did so in good faith but they are all overkill. --Morenooso (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:Deletion of a userpage
Hello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In recognition of your wikilinked puns about this guy and your pride in working on his article. Given humbly to myself this 21st day of April in the year of the um, er bear. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Time to go to eBay and get a new battery. Either that, or go back to bed. Lost two updates - thank you very much. --Morenooso (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Teen runs modesto
Thank you for the dedication and the post at my talk page. Unfortunately by the time I read it (I haven't logged in for a while) the discussion was already closed. I see though that it'd been userfied, so I think that's a pretty good place to start. I won't be nominating it if it comes back up, and I think if those sources are added, it's worth a shot to add it back to the mainspace. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
uh what are you talking about? you left me a message and i answered back using no vulgarity. Please leave me alone, seriously. Stop harassing me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonori47 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Belinda
The edit you made on the Belinda page was completely unnecessary. Belinda is SPANISH MEXICAN, not just Mexican as she was born in Spain and lived there many years until returning to Mexico. She is not JUST Mexican. She is SPANISH MEXICAN.
Hello Morenooso! I appologize for not responding sooner, but i was away most of the weekend. Nonetheless, thank you for restoring the references. -- Lancini87 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Emrah Üntürk, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.emrahunturk.com. As a copyright violation, Emrah Üntürk appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Emrah Üntürk has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Emrah Üntürk with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.orgor a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Emrah Üntürk.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Darkknight598 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for stopping by. But, if you will take note, you submitted the file; ergo, the warning belongs to you. --Morenooso (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
frivolous threat of 3RR advice given to this editor
False and frivolous accusation in Guy Fawkes. Why you are opposing addiyion of legitimate (well cited as easily checked by internet search) legacy item? Are you a scientologist?
A review of the Guy Hawkes' historyDIFF shows that you made three revisions after you were reverted. And in my edit summary of my last revert, I advised that a potential 3RR situation existed. I then went to your talkpage and left a standardized 3RR advice template warning for you to read. You chose to ignore it and now another editor has reverted you. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Please do not be uncivil and toss around words like threats and accusing me of being of another faith. --Morenooso (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, although I think you should be speaking to the first editor who tagged the article for deletion. I simply tagged it as G7 when I noted that the author of the only substantial content had blanked it.
"If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request."
Understand all. However, WP:BEFORE addresses all your concerns. And, any editor can decline a CSD. Please review WP:CSD. WP:BEFORE stresses articles should be improved if all possible. --Morenooso (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cathycamp opened today. Scientizzle added another user who voted in the same AfD as the other suspected sockpuppets. There are a couple of anon IPs that have done reverts in the Brian Quintana article but they have not been active since 2009. In this DIFF by Yourmistaken, it is interesting to note its canvass for AfD votes similar to Cathycamp and its belief that as June 2010 rolls around, more traffic will be generated to the article. I would expect more sockpuppets too if the article is still around. --Morenooso (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, any user can decline a PROD. I am an editor here with three years experience. If I see a notable article, I decline PRODs. Conversely, I nominate CSDs, Page Patrol and perform a number of general edits. Move along. --Morenooso (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course any user can decline a prod; that's the point of a prod - to find out whether deletion is uncontroversial. I was asking you WHY, to know whether I'd overlooked some reason for keeping an apparently redundant article, or whether I should take it to AfD. I was moving to "discussion" rather than "revert" or "AfD", which I thought you might appreciate. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you're not going to be civil I'm less likely to assume you know what you're doing and leave you to get on with it. I'll keep an eye on the article with a view to taking it to AfD in a week if a rationale hasn't been provided as to why it doesn't replicate content in other articles. Thanks for your time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No sir, it is you who are doing arbitrary reverts in supporting biases information and an evident intention of defamation. In this case I will invite other users to see this case. Please respect the project of Wikipedia. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ06:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I am a Page Patroller who has been on this article long-term. You can check its RevisionHistory. There are also admins on this article. They would not let me do POV editting. You need to get your facts straight. --Morenooso (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
My latest crusade
About to post something from another talkpage that I want to be able to reference in my talkpage. It will be the next section post directly taken from there. --Morenooso (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Morenooso for reminder on Junipero Serra article, was just ' -- ' a few existing words for links - and then 'drifted off' into un-citated editing. Will take more care hereon.--Look2See1 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Help with Bianca Jagger article
Hello, how are you doing? The controversy article died down overnight but now regular editors are combatting each other. On another note while looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians project page, I noticed that Jimbo Wales made a request about adding material to her article Bianca Jagger. In his post back in 2007 on her talkpage (see these DIFFS), Jimbo listed the material Ms. Jagger contacted about having added to her article. It got added in but it appears someone slapped several tags on the article. The one, from my viewpoint, that makes no sense is additional citations necessary. The article has 19.
I would like to start citing this article but its revision history points to editors battling over additions. Although those wars have died down, I feel that if I source the article, my cites will get challenged. I have several great ones and am about to put an Underconstruction tag on the article as I begin to cite it. Additionally, I found just a little while ago a great URL that lists almost verbatim her awards. Now, it may be that she gave it to the site or it mirrored Wikipedia but I will use it judiciously. It comes from a site that an article here:
While you are digesting this post, I will begin my initial citations so you can see my work. I will look at your talkpage as I have it under Watch.Morenooso (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've not time to look at this in depth now, but a quick scan of the article as it stands (i've not looked at the history) indicates:
Under the 'Activisism' section, there's a lot of unsourced stuff there, most of which should be pretty uncontroversial (chair of this, founder of that, nominated for the other). Sources for the awards would be good too. I would have thought that a Council of Europe release was a very reliable source. If yuo're not sure, the best place to ask is at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Additionally, if you're worried about making controversial edits, suggest them on the talk page first, and iron it out there so the article doesn't become unstable with lots of reversions. GedUK07:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Part of the problem I kind of identified is that these URLs could almost be seen as circular, self-posting efforts by her or wholesale press releases of her bio/resume. But, almost everyone uses or mentions the same ones - ergo, it looks like the various URLs got it right. --Morenooso (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I had a run-in with an editor from there on an AfD. Basically, he called all my cites bogus and I requested a Third Opinion. The TO came in my favor and he caved in on the AfD. I suspect Jimbo has the article under Watch and that an admin called by one of Monty Python Knight nicknames will hopefully help or intercede should my work get carved up. --Morenooso (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that went a lot faster then I thought it would. I couldn't find one award but added 14 references. Could please click through them and see that they resolve? I would the fun and games will begin. . . --Morenooso (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, they all seem fine to me. I can't see why anyone would have an issue with any of those; adding sources about facts rather than opinoin should never be a problem if they're reliable. The area you might run into issues is trying to source some of the rather POV bits in the activism section (was shocked by, persuaded to, etc). GedUK11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I've identified the problem and it stems from the talkpage discussions. The easiest one is a lawsuit about a ring she lost. It was found in Austria whose law says the finder is entitled to 5% of its value or about 10,000 euros. If you read between the lines, the finder probably expected Jagger to automatically give the money over. Something happpened between her lawyers and his and the case became a defamation suit. In America, some people will purposely exhort lost items such as pets or jewelry because they know the items can be sentimental to the owner.
The very next section, Challenges in improving the article, is very revealing and contains the bones that is hurting her article. Difference in birth years is listed. To be honest, I bet many articles have inaccurate birthdate because the subject shaved some years off or a legitimate error exists. Jimbo Wales has that problem. What surprises me about this is that no one seems to care about his date. It used to be that new editors did not change info otherwise admins and page patrollers would revert. I've even chipped my opinion that being that he is on the foundation may have had it put his note on the article with a reference {WP:RS) and annotation on his talkpage.
The crux of the improving section seems to be the dichotomy between her earlier "jet set" image and now being a world-wide advociate. Like many articles, editors want to tip the POV balance to reflect material that is available. . .reflection of her own attempts to overcome her previous image. I translate to meaning someone wants dirt or perceived bad lifestyle RS news that can be used in the article. However, that info is vintage 1970s' news.
From the info provided by her to Jimbo, either she or he (I would to think Jimbo) identified 1981 as a key year in her life. A death squad marched into Honduras and captured 40 UN camp refugees. Jagger and relief workers trailed the death squad back to El Salvador. When the two parties came within earshot range, Jagger etal supposedly shouted that the squad would have to kill the UN party who would become witnesses or martyrs (martyrs my interpretation). The squad departed without the refugees.
From that point on, she has led a good life IMHO. Most people would park her as being leftist but when the battle for human rights is fought, history usually records those people as being heroic and the bedrock of what made the Magna Carta great - fighting against the system or status quo to obtain inalienable rights.
Sorry to be so long winded. I never knew all this about her. While I was working on the Recent changes page, I saw an article "fly by" with the word escadrille in it. I backed up my screen because I love the early history of aerial escapades in WWI that detail famous escadrilles. I was kind of disappointed when I clicked on Allen Escadrille to find out it was a high school marching band. Looking over its article I discovered it was nominated for an AfD. In looking at the article, I said to myself this escadrille is notable for performing overseas in Dublin, in Macy's and the Rose parades and an award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation (I wonder who John was - probably a piker, not). I then found citations for all those events and sourced the article. I think two of the participants, who voted Keep, are angry because my "Strong Keep" analysis shows that like the nominator, they did not really examine the article or try to improve it.
I saw it was listed at WP Musicians and wanted to add that tag on the escadrille's talkpage. I visited the WP, looked high and low but could not find the appropriate {{WikiProject Musicians}} tag. I did see in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians#...Expansion Expansion section that several groups/bios I like need work. I probably should stick to my WPs but thought I would pick up one or two articles. I noted that Jagger's entry had special request by me (Jimbo) which further reads:
Ms Jagger has contacted me very sweetly and very politely with concerns about some errors (which I corrected) but also supplied me with some additional info (see the talk page). It would be nice if the article could be improved, as I like to reward people who approach us in the right way (nicely!).
Not that I am trying to score points with anyone to include Jimbo but I thought that if he cared enough to post there, I would look at her article. As Paul Harvey said, "Now you know the rest of the story. Sorry for the emphasis but Harvey had a way of booming his voice on those words. I miss him. . .but I digress.
It is pretty much the same account as provided to Jimbo in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. I did several searchs using first the camp name (?), then Jagger+death squad which got the hit. Every other search seemed to be circular pointing back towards her bio or press releases. I would like to have two great WP:RS cites so the wordsmithing can form one three sentence paragraph. --Morenooso (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Lightning strikes again! I remembered one of the cited articles I used last night being similar in content because it too came from a British newspaper. Present citation #27:
About 60 percent down or if you search for "1981", two big paragraphs fill the first news account with quotes from Jagger. I am going to set up a file in my userspace to work on because I had some hiccups last night and destroyed one or two cites I built. That set me back 20 minutes and a potty break to get fresh air. --Morenooso (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Question about buttons
i think i did that wrong but what i was trying to say is that i dont know what the buttons do caoud you explking what they do when i press them i know the signature one though sincerely joesph a banks --76.125.211.2 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I did too. I must have fat fingers today because I am having problems typing. Normally I type at 40 words per whatever but can't do jack right now. I place a Welcome template on his page too. --Morenooso (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Another editor warned this editor about his post here. I am trying to help him. It's okay if he "messes up" my talkpage a bit. --Morenooso (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, I did review the anonIP's contribution history when I saw this DIFF come across my Watchlist screen. I almost reverted but decided to WP:AGF and see if I could help it. It's okay for the anonIP to mess up my talkpage (within reason). If it gets too graphic, then I will step in. --Morenooso (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note of thanks...
...for tending to what should have been minor, routine talk page editing issues. I could have warned you about what you were being sucked into, had I been a little quicker to notice... Anyway, your efforts are appreciated. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Where's the accusation of meatpuppetry? Even looking at this edit, I can't find anything about meatpuppetry. Until I understand the situation better, I don't want to become more involved. By the way, please don't take this as a "bug off" — I simply don't think it a good idea to start making assumptions when I'm quite confused about what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Callistus Valentine Onaga
Nice work on the article, especially since it's not an American or European bishop for whom sources might more easily be found. I'm confused, however; do you want me to nominate it for DYK? Or were you just showing me what you've been up to? Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination is simple. Go to T:TDYK and read the "How to list a new nomination" section. If you want to nominate an article that you've just written from nothing, add {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=}} and put the article name after "article=", your name after "author=", and the hook (including a link to the new article, bolded) after "... that ". If you've expanded an article, you need to have "expanded" instead of "new" after "status=". Place the template above all other candidates in the appropriate day's subsection of the "Candidate entries" section. If you want, you can include a picture; see the directions for details. Any other questions? Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to the article. I will find ways to improve the article myself and solicit input from other users as well. Any recommendations you can make based on your review are welcomed. ReMiami (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed your comments because even if you did not find them against WP:CIVIL, I did. I asked you a perfectly reasonable question and there was no way to respond in the way you did.
Now please stay off my talk page and I will likewise stay of yours.
As an editor I will respect your wishes. However, as a Page Patroller, I have a duty. Other editors have noted that you seem to have a problem with nominating CSDs. We all have faults but yet you persisted. And, I will note any further comments here as WP:NPA as you are being WP:POINT about all of this. My declination was fully explained to you. I stated if you disagree, proceed to AfD with the article. When you persisted, I recommended you review WP:BEFORE.
You can erase your talkpage all you like but its history remains. Please your own advice and stay off my page. I will not follow your contribs if you are worried about that. --Morenooso (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Be advised, if material under dispute is deleted again, the matter will be referred to the appropriate administrative board. --Morenooso (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The editor above chose to ignore maintenance tags and deleted disputed content without seeking WP:CONSENSUS. The issue has been advanced to the LGBT noticeboard where the last dispute was settled in this DIFF.--Morenooso (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I should point out to you that I was not simply blanking the page. On the talk page I raised, more than once, a number of very serious objections to the matter being included. You failed to address the issues raised and simply reverted to include the highly dubious material without any substantive discussion. Claiming that a biographical subject was a pederast is an extraordinary claim. It requires serious sourcing. So far there is no such sourcing. The biographies of the subject are devoid of this claim. As such, deletion of the dubious material seems quite warranted, especially since the exceptions to including it have not been answered on the talk page. Mamalujo (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The information is under dispute as citations cover the material. It is at the appropriate noticeboard.--Morenooso (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
You may want to consider doing a self revert. As far as I can see you have not addressed the objections to the disputed material at all on the talk page. You only seem to be saying there is no consensus to delete - that is not engaging in discussion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I know my editting limits and could argue that my last two edits were reverts of disputed material which means my last edit goes to 0724Z when I restored the deleted disputed section. I knew that and fully intend not to edit the article until 0724Z which is approximately seven hours from now. The editor, who left this warning, was 3RR yesterday as well. If he edits it again with a revert, he will be 3RR3 and because of his warnings could go L4. --Morenooso (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I made one relevant revert on the 28th and two on the 30th. (My "revert" on the 29th was just deleting vandalism, having nothing to do with the dispute.) I also made at least three attempts to engage in substantive discussion of the merits of the disputed section. You have never engaged in that discussion but merely say there is "no consensus". That is not discussion. Also, it appears there is consensus to delete as numerous different users have sought to delete the matter, you are the only one who opposes it and have reverted 10 times in the past two weeks. You aren't engaging in discussion. This is a serious charge which requires serious sourcing. The section is poorly supported and mainstream biographers and historians say nothing about this claim. You make it clear from your comments that you fully intend to get in your three reverts then sit back until you're in the clear and then resume edit warring. That is called "gaming" the system. You can be blocked even if you don't exceed 3rr in 24 hours. In addition to the recent 3rr, you had at least seven reverts of the virtual same material and you ignore any attempts to engage in real discussion of the sections merits to be included in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You prove nothing with this comment as I know 3RR. In essence, I demonstrated that I knew I would not go over 3RR which I haven't. --Morenooso (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this editor filed the report earlier today at 0017 but never notified me that I had been reported. --Morenooso (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Neutral editor has suggested a rewrite of the controversy with John Bosco's article
The page i created is not for a business but is a genuine producer who my band has worked with! the only source i have of him is the website i provided, as the other pages he uses you would consider social networking pages!
Soundingood (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)SoundingoodSoundingood (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Lemar9?!? has added another outside source to my article about mike beal, is there anything i can do to stop the page getting pulled??
Soundingood (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to collaborate with you on deciding how this article is to be categorized. Communicating through edit summaries is not working for me. I do not fully understand the meaning of these summaries:
Rv: this is an accredited institution as per its WP:LEAD
Rv: No WP:CONSENSUS (let the bot do its work when the cat is removed)
I agree that the institution is accredited; my removal of Category:Universities and colleges in California had nothing to do with accreditation; the category contains both accredited and unaccredited schools.
You tell me? There is no use when valid cats exist which you stated in your initial post here. I knew all that. Oh, BTW, I did communicate by other than edit summaries on the article talkpage as you found out. I know this article. --Morenooso (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I grant that you may be an expert on the article's subject. That does not give you absolute control over how the article is categorized.
I still disagree. I am watching the flavor of the week cat delsort with articles like Roscoe Lee Browne and I can find an editor that agrees with me too. Why don't you move to your next article and leave this one alone? --Morenooso (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
My list goes on. When valid cats, exist there is no need for diffusion. When cats are deleted, the flavor of the week bot will by shortly to rectify the cat. --Morenooso (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The category is not being deleted; it is being diffused. I have plenty of other articles to work on, but I want to get this issue resolved before I go much further. I would hate to have to revert several hundred edits in a few days.
BTW, your summaries missed lots too. Each one of the articles listed had cat delsorts as well. If valid cats exist, there is no need for diffusion. For as per all the examples, eventually a bot will come and sort them out. No need to jump the gun. --Morenooso (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the difficulty I have understanding your arguments (and apparently vice versa), I think a third opinion might prove helpful to us both. But first I'll try one more time.
I'm sorry if any of my edit summaries were unclear. I'll try to do better in the future, and I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for improving my edit summaries.
My edits to any particular article could be handled by a single revert. The situation in which hundreds of reverts would be necessary would be if I got nearly done with diffusing a category and then found out that consensus was not to diffuse the category. In the case of Category:Universities and colleges in California, the category contained about 200 articles when I started, and I expect to edit most of them during the diffusion process.
I'm not trying to delete the article, nor am I trying to delete the category. I'm not out to delete anything, so I don't see what delsorts (deletion sorting tags) have to do with my edits. Can you clearly explain how delsorts relate to your argument?
I also don't understand why you keep referring to bots. Which bots are you referring to and what do you expect them to eventually do to "sort out the situation"? If a bot is going to do what I'm trying to do (move the article out of Category:Universities and colleges in California) then why did you revert me when I did so by hand?
Looks like the T.O. went your way. I still disagree. But, since I primarily wikidefend this article, it will come off Watch as it has you to watch over it. --Morenooso (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd still like to understand your argument, but I guess that's water under the bridge now.
If the article is important to you, you might want to keep watching it. When I make a minor contribution, I generally keep the article in my watchlist for only a few days to a week, else my list becomes hopelessly cluttered. I'll try to remember to keep this one longer, but no guarantees. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Fushi Copperweld & COI
Morenooso, have you actually read these articles, or just decided that you have an axe to grind? There is nothing in any of the articles I have contributed to that concern the company for which I work that could even vaguely be considered biased. Your COI tag is unwarranted, because the language in it implies that I have been duplicitous or not shown NPOV, which is absolutely not the case. If I were out there saying "go buy my product" or "gee isn't Fushi Copperweld great" I could understand, but there is nothing in the article anywhere that can't be documented. It's got references. Everything in it is historical fact, and is verifiable. I think you need to revisit your motivations behind this tag, actually read through the article, and then, please go and remove it. I would invite you or anyone to contribute to this page, it will make this reference much better, which is all I am trying to do. I'm in the wire business. You can rest assured I have better things to do with my marketing time that spend it on Wikipedia, I don't think it's an ideal vehicle for reaching my customers.Iamvered (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Whenever an article comes up under my Watchlist or I wikilink another to it, I try to improve the article if possible. --Morenooso (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
On block quotes, I know nothing about. When I do quotations it is the standard format-the quote follow by the citation-many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
On interwiki links-I have noticed some of the editors connected with the Recent deaths section would translate and bring the articles over to the English Wikipedia-that makes things easier-RFD (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes oh wise Instructor. Your pupil has some articles that eventually will show me a blockquote. I will learn and demo it for you the beginning of my thesis. Hmmm, didn't know about the interwiki link thingee. However, I bet our McFarland is better than theirs. --Morenooso (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am amazed also about the interwiki links that they have and we do not have. An example-Montana Territory had two acting governors-James Tufts and Wiley Scribner. Until recently both articles were just in the German Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia. In the last few days I started articles for both especially for Wiley Scribner who also served in the Wisconsin State Assembly. I have been starting articles about members of the Wisconsin State Legislature. So it was weird seeing two American politicians in a foreign language wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia-Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It kind of goes to the argument that history is written by the victors. Wikipedia is primarily written by Americans but now other countries are contributing their fair share. Still, American Wikipedia editors use a notability guide that sometimes kills great or needed articles before they can make it past an AfD. Morenooso (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if people deliberately killed articles perfectly good articles using the notability guide out of spite, pettiness, jealously-of some editor who racks up many DYKs-to try to cut the editor down to size? I had made thinking about that lately-Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I would hope not. Most CSDs and PRODs are closely watched by the admins because deletions are reviewable. AfD is consensus but sometimes articles don't get the opportunity to be fleshed out. We all have a different perspective of what is notable and while the guidelines exist, even they can be arbitrarily changed. Still, AfD is consensus meaning community which is the bottom line. --Morenooso (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Plurals
Actually, discussion at the Catholic Church wikiproject concluded that plurals were appropriate; I moved a few articles for churches in this group after discussion finalised. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the way templates work (templates transcluded into templates transcluded into templates), I'd likely need to import lots of templates to get this one to work. Have you considered copying some code from other articles? I know nothing of coding templates, but copy/pasting enabled me to create most of the 3,000+ county templates that you can see at the bottom of any community article throughout the USA. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had mixed luck trying to copy over infoboxes into articles I've worked on. Usually I somehow kill the coding or can't get it to work for me. I am kind of surprised no closed the AfD as its nominator suggested. --Morenooso (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
WYSIWYG
Sorry, I'm not aware of such a thing; you'd do well to ask at the Help Desk or the Technical Village Pump. Editing offline, however, is easy: I almost always write in Notepad and copy/paste the finished product into the browser. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess. It's the footnoting stuff that usually kills me. I'm thinking about building a generic template that will alleviate some of what I am trying to do. --Morenooso (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Roman Catholic bishops-Recent Deaths section-
I have been doing stubs for Roman Catholic bishops who died and are listed in the Recent Deaths section; otherwise, if the redlinks remained after one month, they are removed. I have notice the interwiki links for the last two bishops I have done. Also articles for Roman Catholic diocesan bishops from the United States are getting done-I do not think there is that many left to do. The Roman Catholic dioceses of Marquette&Kalamazoo in Michigan now have just one each to be done. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Will do-sometimes 2-3 Roman Catholic bishops may died within a day or so. Also- if there an Episcoplian or Orthodox bishop who dies I will do a stub even a theologian-Thanks-RFD (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's quite possible that I have too much of a sense of WP:OWN with Backmasking. Nevertheless, it's pretty obvious from the article's references that a maintenance tag that says "This article needs additional citations for verification." doesn't belong there. If letting me pretend that I own the article makes it better, then let me keep on dreaming. In other words, just alleging bias is not a good reason for reverting an edit.
Furthermore, I reverted your addition because I thought I had a way to do the same thing you were trying to do, better. Instead of immediately reverting me, you should have posted something on the talk page of the article. (For the same reason, I'm discussing this with you now rather than reverting you.) But what was really uncalled for is using the rollback feature for a non-controversial revert. From Wikipedia:Rollback feature: "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit. ... If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert." Λυδαcιτγ06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No edit done in good faith deserves an automatic revert. But anyway, what's done is done, so tell me, why should an article that doesn't need additional citations have a message on it that says "This article needs additional citations for verification."? Λυδαcιτγ16:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hugh T. Rinehart House
By the way, I've been helping you somewhat; would you be willing to help me with something? I've just written Hugh T. Rinehart House, and it's long enough for DYK, but I'm not sure about the hook. Could you write a good hook and nominate it? Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't know why; my print source doesn't discuss that name, and it's obviously not mentioned in the online book. Presumably that's a later owner's name; the Julius Boesel House is listed as being also the "Don Kuck House", which was the name of the owner when it was listed. By the way, the criteria bits that you added are duplicative of the "Recognition" section: Criterion B is for Rinehart, and Criterion C is for the architecture. These are actually National Park Service criteria for National Register listing; see this page for details. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it's normally a good idea to use last names; however, her name was Juliana Rinehart when she lived there, so it's not really accurate to call her "Godfrey" at that point in her life. I'll be happy only to continue the conversation here if you want; I'm actually the type that prefers to split conversations like we have been doing, but it's not a problem to have it all in one place. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Is duplicating the criterion a bad thing? I think for the average reader (like dumb me), who knows nothing about NR listings, this is a helpful fact. --Morenooso (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it's helpful; if we say "Criterion B and Criterion C", we either (1) don't explain them and thus confuse the average reader, or (2) we say exactly what's down below. Since the listing criteria are really best made part of the Recognition section, we'd essentially have to have two sentences saying the same thing. Or is there a way to work the criteria designations into what's in Recognition? Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Tell you what I will edit the article in my userspace and you can then copyedit there so that it doesn't look "junked up" when you make the final determination. Maybe the criterion should be in the recognition section - I think you're right. --Morenooso (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've deleted it. Did you get all the recommended changes moved to the userspace page? By the way, the criterion you wanted was G7, not A7; it was obvious that you wanted deletion, so I deleted it by G7. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. Looks like you editted out the criterion ref. How do you feel about it going into the article? I wonder if I can chew gum and walk at the same time?
You slay me! I can now see what happened and how you resolved everything nicely in one place. I told you I'm dribbling on my vest. I've put some discussion on the userspace talkpage. Part of the reason I did this was because I did not want to edit your masterpiece with my clumsy editting. --Morenooso (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Listen buddy, compared to what I put out, you, RFD and Tajm are Mickeyangelos. Me, somebody in my real life actually did give me a set of crayons, told me to sit down, shut up and color. I was speechless because it was done so sincerely. --Morenooso (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, from the search I see other wikicommon pix listed. Are you going to put a gallery type listing or set of pix? --Morenooso (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's the hook (not wikilinked yet) that I thought of two hours ago when you initially asked:
DYK Hugh T. Rinehart House was built by a justice of the peace is listed on the National Register of Historic Places because it is a well-preserved period house?
That's okay, I'm still a little drowsy. Looks like you've busy with the suggested edits. Have you modified the main article? --Morenooso (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
First, please understand that my comments following this sentence aren't meant to be nasty — I don't quite know how to say it otherwise. This hook is probably too long: there's a strict 200-character maximum, but something of this length is likely to be seen as somewhat excessive. It may also be criticised as "not interesting enough". We can rework this hook without too much difficulty, however; I like your focus on Rinehart's position in the community. What do you think of "...that the Hugh T. Rinehart House was the home of one of the original government officials of Auglaize County, Ohio?" Or what about "...that the builder of the Hugh T. Rinehart House was one of the original county commissioners of Auglaize County, Ohio?" Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not planning to implement your changes; I'll just move the page in your userspace to the article, delete both, and merge their histories. I would have been quicker on responding earlier if I'd not been mowing several lawns (it's my only income at the moment, or otherwise I'd not be able to be online as much) this afternoon, by the way. Also, no I've never met Tejm. It's definitely unusual to see an atheist doing a lot of work on religion articles, but no complaints. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My server went down temporarily. I think the maintenance guys outside hit a wire. Tajm's an atheist? Holy cow, Batman! I like hook #2 but with original as the adjective for home. Let me look over the archive. If you like the second hook as is, after I finish reading I will post it.
BTW, no offensive. I need to learn stuff like this. My editting skills are not the best. I know how to write at the graduate level but here on Wikipedia I get my butt or edits kicked regularly. --Morenooso (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't merge the histories either. Why pollute the masterpiece with my dribble? That's why I colored in my corner. --Morenooso (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Too late; your improvements are in the article history :-) And yes, Tajm's userpage includes a template with the text of "God made this user an atheist. Do you question his wisdom?" I'm confused about what you mean about the adjective. Please just post the one you like best: it's always possible for me to offer an alt hook after you put up the original suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I really need to pay attention to userpages. I wonder with *whom* I said that to recently? Scratch, scratch, scratch. Holy smokes, Batman. Scantily dressed good looking women are dancing on the telly. Back to important stuff, that would not make me question his judgment nor the articles he contributes. If anything, he is an equal-opportunity editor or contributor. I know some editors here must really question what side of the street I come from. I try to be a wikidefender first, contributor second but one who tries to avoid my POV. Holy smoke. Shaila Durcal, errr, growl.
Your email came in fine; thanks. I'm not questioning anything about Tajm; I'm just surprised, since the average atheist editor probably doesn't do much with religion-related topics. The only editor with whom I work much whom I know to be an atheist is Heironymous Rowe, and we get along quite well. Thanks for the hook; that should be fine, although frankly I'd be happy if a third person had an idea better than either of us did. One thing, by the way — when you include a picture in the nomination, it's considered helpful to add (pictured) after the name of the article. Good job on figuring out how to add the picture and the rollover/alt text. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm learning. I actually prefer to scratch behind my ears and let my tongue drool but that's not important right now. --Morenooso (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer the local-official bit. Most buildings on the National Register are privately owned, and I expect that almost all NR-listed houses are privately owned. However, you're free to offer this as an alt hook: simply go to the section for this house and type '''ALT 1''' [text of hook here]; the reviewer will likely offer an opinion on both the original and the alt, and either one (if they're both approved) will be eligible for use. I'm not clear what you mean about the talk page citation, since I can't find anything about "private" on the talk page; however, it is privately owned. You can see this from the "Governing body" line of the template that's currently on the article; anything not government-owned will be marked as "Private". Or you could go to the house itself and talk with the residents like I did, but I suspect that you'd have a harder time doing that when you're in California than I did when I was in easy bicycling distance of this house. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it was one that was not incorporated into the main body then. If I remember correctly it formed #5. You know better on the hooks. I am trying to learn and "feel" my way about this. So, everything you tell me in going into the memory banks. Arr, arr. Physically walking to Ohio. You slay me! --Morenooso (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw Sellas' entry. I thought it was a great one. "Knighted" caught my attention. Listen, if I start walking tomorrow, I figure I can be in Ohio by the Twelfth of Never.--Morenooso (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. As a matter of fact, this thematic grouping wasn't entirely Gothic Revival (see St. Patrick's Catholic Church (St. Patrick, Ohio), but it says somewhere (I can't remember where) that for the purposes of the nomination, the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches is a circle with a 22-mile radius from Maria Stein, Ohio. If you go to Wikimapia and use their distance measuring tool, you can see that Maria Stein is slightly more than 30 miles from Delphos — but of course I don't expect you to know the details of distances between small communities in western Ohio :-) Many multiple property submission (MPS) forms list the properties included in the nomination — for example, see the last three pages of the form for the Lima MRA — so it's definitely annoying that the Cross-Tipped Churches of Ohio TR doesn't include such a list. I got the list of properties by downloading the National Register database: if a property is part of an MPS, it gives the name of the MPS. By the way, if you have any use for MPS forms for your own purposes, check out WP:MPS — it gives links to nearly all MPS forms with their names. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Technicalities, technicalities. First the reviewer with the word, unique. Now, you with 30 miles versus 22. Is that 30 miles as you drive or 22 as per aerial flight? This is like stretching out the chicken's head, measuring with a micrometer and then using a B-61 device to make sure you got him cleanly. I know I'm exaggerating with that last example but you guys are killing me! --Morenooso (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the assurance; but I wasn't worried about the coloring comments. Another thing about the churches, by the way, is the culture of the area — the area known as the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches is almost entirely Catholic. For all I know, this may be true of Delphos as well, but it's definitely not the case once you get into far northern Auglaize County and far western Allen County; you can find plenty of Protestant churches in the area. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you be interested in these articles?
Hi. We didn't get on over the Stinking badges article but I note you've been active on a lot of church-related articles. I've been working on the articles Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté and Ignace Bourget recently (both figures from the 19th century Canadian Roman Catholic Church). I'm not Roman Catholic or really any kind of Christian and the articles could probably use some independent checking to ensure that the church jargon is used appropriately and links to the relevant articles. If you feel like stopping by either of those articles, or just adding them to your watch list, you'd be most welcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I figured someone else might have CSD tagged it not knowing that schools can't be speedied and figured the my AfD template was removed in error along with it. 2says you, says two15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Used to be that schools above the HS level were considered inherently notable. Now, everything is fair game. What has Wikipedia come to?--Morenooso (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Will take a look in 20 minutes. Watchlist review in progess and I have some beauts. Thanks for the heads-up! --Morenooso (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Edits will commence now. Mostly MoS stuff unless I really find a URL citation that improves his article. --Morenooso (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article you might want to research and write-Bishop Bonaventure Broderick-he was persona non grata with the Pope and Roman Curia until Cardinal Spellman brought into his ministry; he operated a gas station during that time-Thank you again-RFD (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
PS-This could get you a DYK!!-Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll consider it. I have one file in the hopper and still need to work on Manogue's article. There are a few organizations with ties to him that find the month of May as a special relationship. I was amazed to find out one had a Derby day named after him which took place the same day as when his article went live. There are also several historic California bishops, who are of interest to the CA WP of which I am a member. I owe a debt to an important person and just thought of two articles that probably should go into the hopper as well. The early California history did not record well some of their historic contributions and history is re-writing them as either invaders or crusaders. I would do the basic article and let it go from there to wherever Wikipedian editors take them.
We counter posted (that happens alot with my talkpage when my ears are burning. Let me create the basic template in my userspace and example what Yhits he gets
By chance, do you have any reliable sources on this individual? He's only getting five or less hits and none that really support the one URL I came up with. --Morenooso (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I first found out about Archbishop Broderick in John Cooney's book: "The American Pope The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman." Spellman founded Broderick operating a gas station and brought him back into his ministry. Thanks RFD (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I like online citations although book quotations can be used. I wrote some more yesterday while off-line. I will post it in my userspace file. If you feel that you want to flesh it out with book quotations, I can push it out to mainspace and you can edit or even in my userspace which now that I think about it might be better. Give me a couple of minutes while I transition over to my hard drive. --Morenooso (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yikes- I found something about Bishop Broderick just a few minutes ago- The is a Spanish language website about the Roman Catholic Bishops of Cuba and there was a biography about Bishop Broderick! I just read his biography. The person who has The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic-Mirandas? is the same one that has the website about the Roman Catholic bishops of Cuba. I typed in Bonaventure Finnbarr Broderick Cardinal Francis Spellman on google and that is how I found it-Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw it though and that's why I asked you to goggle him. Searches will sometimes garner more ghits I have a translation but did not get in all the editting I wanted to. I am in the middle of posting the work I did. Give me five minutes so as not to break my train of thought. This choo-choo is wobbly. --Morenooso (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
We just cross-posted or whatever. My bio of him was in Spanish. The searching may be yielding new hits as I have not had a chance to search using my suggestions to you. Give me five minutes. --Morenooso (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stay off my talkpage. I am between edits and the flashing orange message throws me off. I was up early as I had to mend some pants and press my shirt for today. --Morenooso (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I am getting ready to put his translated bio on my userspace page. I don't have the URL as it is on the flashdrive in my truck. I uploaded my work in progress yesterday while I was taking a break. For obvious reasons, the translation cannot remain as part of the push to mainspace. Recommend you copy it to your hard drive. Please do not answer yet. --Morenooso (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There it is. Take a look and see what you think. I don't think I can take it any farther and today is going to be a short day for me. I did not plan on taking it this far but if you have the book, you can copy the translated bio onto your harddrive and then post it appropriately in the userspace file. When you are ready, I will push it out to mainspace. --Morenooso (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You were recently inquiring about a digital scan of someone's signature. You may be interested in this public document, page 4. I suppose an enterprising photo alteration specialist could isolate the signature, so that it looks as nice as Ronald Reagan's. -- The Bride of Lammermoor (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
When you engage in actions not consistentent with Wikipedia policy, standardized substituted warnings templates will be delivered to your talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Morenooso. Yes, I have developed the article keeping in mind these concerns. The general editors who are blaming the regular editors, crying that their WP:AGF additions have been reverted, needs to understand that defamatory material that they are trying to add is unacceptable in Wikipedia. More so than other things, I see people trying to add/spice up things regarding the hermaphrodite thing and more recently the Time magazine listing although it was achieved by fan voting and not critical notability. Everythign is being discussed in the article rather than going to a revert war of teh article, hence I believe this shouldn't cause a problem in the nomination. Thanks for your concern anyways. Really appraciated. --Legolas(talk2me)04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree as legitmate edits with citations have been blocked or are routinely editted out. Yes, I am aware of fancruft edits to her article and the desire to paint her in a negative light. Still, this is Wikipedia the online encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Morenooso (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I saw this reply on your talkpage as I have it under Watch for a reply. With the answer on both talkpages, your talkpage now coming off Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Joseph
Please edit other people the way you want to be edited (the Golden Rule). Don't delete information without showing that it violates WP policy. Follow the rules. Leadwind (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Alas, the issue is no longer Spong. Now ReaverFlash wants to keep exclude history off the page unless it concurs with the Gospels, even the most mainstream sources we have. Leadwind (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not exceed the scope of the article as per my recent post on the talkpage. That is the proper place for this converstation. --Morenooso (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Callistus Valentine Onaga, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
See this version of the template. The template gets updated every few hours, so Onaga was only on there from 1600 to the end of the day, in UTC time — you would have seen him if you'd looked fifteen minutes earlier. And you're welcome; you did the hard work :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Aw man, it was all work and no play today. Just my luck: dollar late, minute short or something to that effect. Thanks again. Looks like my hook for your nom has been accepted. --Morenooso (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at my list — I had been active for over two years before I got my first DYK, and all but five have been in the last year. It's largely because I've become much more of an article writer since graduating from college a year ago. You've just started doing DYKs; the more you do, the easier it will be. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've looked and it's a very impressive list. Now, pull over! One up, 36 to go. And, here I'm stuck on article number four. --Morenooso (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh great! Daniel has buukuu awards, DYKs, you name it. I wonder if I have any cheap gin in the house? --Morenooso (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I have you to thank as my mentor and inspiration for getting me to write articles like this. Pretty heady as this is one of my first ones. And, I have Nyttend to thank for nominating it. I am going to have a hard time getting my head outside the door tonight. --Morenooso (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Unwarranted warnings on my talk page.
Not every potentially controversial edit, and not every revert, is deprecated as edit warring. The following situations should be noted:
You're right. It was almost a clinical study. And, I'm lucky you didn't post this picture with this caption in the applicable section of that WP policy:
I got the Cooney book The American Pope from the La Crosse Public Library. Then with your permission I will see what I can do with the Bishop Broderick draft. One thought would one of the interwikis might have the article in a foreign language? Also many thanks for nominating DYK of the article I had started-very humbling and my thanks-RFD (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You know you're welcome both on the DYK and to edit Broderick's article. I will probably add in his early bio later today or tomorrow. --Morenooso (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the Broderick article based on the Cooney book about Cardinal Spellman-Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw the change which is why I asked the additional questions. Without the answers to those questions, his article would be unbalanced from a reader's viewpoint who would not know why he ultimately resigned be it forced or voluntary, and how he came to become a gas station attendant writing for a newspaper column. In addition, his place of death is not available as per my observation. --Morenooso (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion; I saw "RFD" and guessed that it was a typo for "DYK" (i.e. "...nominating Thomas John McDonnell for DYK?"), not a reference to our friend, and your response just above this comment made me think that my guess was correct. Creation by RFD and expansion by you came close enough together that both processes really should be considered part of the creation; you can both be considered "contributors" if you want to think of it that way. Expansion is more for situations such as St. John's Catholic Church (Delphos, Ohio), in which the article was tiny until I came along and added a lot of information, or Eastern chipmunk, in which the article was a decent size but got expanded significantly; it's not really meant for a very new article that was a stub for only a tiny period of time. And don't worry about the image. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, please don't think that I was boasting the other day when I asked you to look at my list — I was trying to make a point about how I'd done so little until recently. Sorry if it came across as bragging. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem - I was curious and you gave a good answer. Yes, I know how the initials thing throws people off. The last two days I've felt like a seeing eye dog is in order. BTW, have you seen my dog? He was around a second ago but I can't see him now. ;) --Morenooso (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Scott Clark is a real person and a valuable member of the community that he lives in. I see no reason why an article about him requires speedy deletion, especially when it possesses so much true information about him. Nothing in the article is malicious. It is as neutral as an article gets. And I only plan on adding more to it over time. Please can you leave it up or explain to me the specific reason why it needs to be taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFonz3000 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And, an admin just Speedily Deleted it. I'm going out on a limb here, but I guess he didn't think your article was notable too. --Morenooso (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Lena Horn
Wow, she died today. I remember having a crush on her almost 25 years ago when according to her article put her around 67. She sure didn't look 67 if you ask me. Good night, sweet princess. Parting is such sweet sorrow. --Morenooso (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate when someone decides they don't want to contribute, but Wikipedia isn't necessarily cut out for everyone, and vice versa. It's good that you tried, though. — e. ripley\talk23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see DYK nom of Shubert_Alley. It only only took me about 10 or less edits to get it somewhat right. Found this on Page Patrol as a new article and decided to nominate it. This is like the Oscars!!! --Morenooso (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Morenooso. You have new messages at Sidonuke's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Man, oh man, Page Patrol is much more fun when you're looking for DYK noms versus taking body blocks from vandals. --Morenooso (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
You may want to consider doing a self revert. As far as I can see you have not addressed the objections to the disputed material at all on the talk page. You only seem to be saying there is no consensus to delete - that is not engaging in discussion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously in progress.
Hello! Your submission of Pizzo Coca at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)