User talk:72Dino/Archive 6

Got him again
He's editing from a library terminal. Might be time to step in and contact the library. PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Stumbled across one of your edits and just wanted to say hi. :) Dino246 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What good taste in usernames (and cars)! 72Dino (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tax Document from Vector Marketing
Hi 72Dino, I was going over the talk page for vector when I re-read that you had found a tax document for '09 regarding discussion on Vector's contributions to the charity fund. Could you please provide a link for my personal review of that Document? Phearson (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. The annual Form 990 that tax-exempt organizations have to file with the IRS is a public document, but for me the easiest way to access the form was to sign up for a free account with GuideStar and then do a nonprofit search under the organization's name.  When you get to the page for the organization there is a tab for a copy of the 990. 72Dino (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, please take this barnstar!

Your message
Thanks for the recognition and encouragement! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for adding the designer label to the infobox of Marisol Deluna. If I need additional assistance with future image posting, I hope you don't mind if I defer a few questions to you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I will be happy to help out if I can. 72Dino (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a quick question, yet an important one. Is there a template to add a list of the nonprofits projects (Such as a actor or artist posts their works for example) that she has created designs for.  Most are non-traditional fashion outlets and would add insight to her work.  Designs are on the company website, yet more were revealed in the edit history that were removed and also on the discussion page when this page was considered for deletion due to vandalism.  Each would have a reference link added.


 * If not, can you suggest an article that may have an acceptable layout to follow?


 * It appears as if one editor will only allow two examples despite the attempts of editors to add more found online or mentioned in articles. I am yet to edit due to my concern that my efforts will also be deleted despite being encyclopedic and verifiable.  I appreciate any help or guidance you can provide. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any such template. I reviewed some of the edit history and discussions about the article, but wasn't quite sure where the examples were removed.  There are certainly no rules limiting the number of works listed, although it should probably not be a laundry list of everything.  I think some of the more notable examples, with a reference from a reliable source as you indicated, should be okay to list as long as it does not cause the article to become promotional.  The WikiProject Fashion may be a resource for examples of articles that have such a layout.  Sorry I couldn't be much help.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1 questions, 1 comment here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438740642&oldid=438735864 -- I am good with your edit here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642 OK, you say in your edit summary that "these links were removed from Student loan earlier as inappropriate for an encyclopedia," but that is incorrect -- the other editor, Petiatil, admitted here that his deletion was an accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petiatil&diff=438740768&oldid=438736402

However, these links were never removed earlier --maybe they should be removed now, but they weren't removed earlier, as you said in your edit summary -- other stuff was removed -- twice --once by a new editor vandalising the page, and again, on accident, by Petiatil --and both times they were fixed.

These are legitimate consumer advocacy groups addressing student loan costs and costs of higher ed -- what is wrong with these pages? Thank you for your input here. This page is being watched because of the earlier vandalism --by the other editor before Petiatil --so I hope to get other input -- and no offense meant or anything, but Ithink you're wrong -- on this new advocacy section, but I will seek the input and concensus of the community before proceeding.71.101.33.24 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies -- I mis read your edit comment -- you said these were removed from 'Student Loan' -- not that article I edited -- you may be right -- I'll have to check it out.71.101.33.24 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem with you disagreeing with me, that's part of Wikipedia. A good place to get some input from the larger community is at the Universities wikiproject.  I think the article will benefit from other editors reviewing it.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update -- I did look at the 'External Links' guidelines,m and also looked again at the 'Student Loan' page --and yes, though the links on the 'american student loan' page were not generally the ones you say were removed, yes you are right: Similar links were removed on the 'student loan' page -- but looking at the 'External links' policy, it would seem that the links I edited in are appropriate -- no offense, but I still disagree with you on this. Now, to the community to resolve this and get consensus --and I must go now to church -be blessed, my friend.71.101.33.24 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Picking back up, seeking community input, concensus, discussion, feedback, etc.
I responded here, now that I'm back from church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Pick_back_up_where_we_left_off 71.100.187.222 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumb Question
RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438914336&oldid=438855298 "(double column refs, remove citation that is clearly not a reliable source)" I saw that you removed one of the several references that verified suicides relate somehow to student loans, but you left the others. What about that one you removed was objectionable? I looked at 'reliable sources' standard & can't distinguish the difference. Thanks!

PS: Cool trick on double columns -- I hope it isn't too 'wide' for folk with smaller resolution monitors (1024x768 for example)-- Wow! -it ISN'T too 'small' --somehow the computer or website 'adjusted' and even in 1024x768, it was OK.

Anyhow -- still confused on your edit above. LOL71.100.190.190 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are generally "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Self-published sources like a blog generally are not considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia.  The other references may not meet that requirement either and if so should be removed.  The one I removed caught my eye because it was so blatant. 72Dino (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the other sources (I have not gone through the actual source text, though). The Illinois Board of Higher Education, Chicago Sun-Times, NPR, and The News Tribune are generally considered reliable sources.  The blog is not. 72Dino (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thx 4 yr feedback -- I'm not the author of that blog (read: no conflict of interest), and while it looks kinda like a blog, it seems somewhat like an unbiased news source --an Internet paper, if you will -and this guy seems somewhat of an expert --so, it is kind of like the NY Times' health, legal, or financial reporter saying something --not US Government official, but still like a news source we could trust. It seems reliable by the standard you lay out -- at least I'D trust it, and I'm no dummy. What about that comparison do you not like? Thx!71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no fact checking, peer review, or anything of the like as opposed to the other sources. If you still feel otherwise you can pose the question at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 72Dino (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oops -- I didn't see your reply here - I had an 'edit conflict' -- so replying to both your above -- and this new post: :: Another thing caught *my* eye -- this writer is only claiming that he got a letter from someone contemplating suicide --not something I'd doubt -- now, on the other hand, if he said that a certain legal proceeding was, say, impossibly for student loan debt (such as how bankruptcy proceedings are NOT legally possibly for students in crisis LOL), THEN, yes, I'd agree that he'd better ante up his credentials --like say, a JD, or MBA degree --or then, maybe it would require him to be a 'legal' or 'education' reporter for a 'big' newspaper, but this claim here does not seem to require such credentials, so I wonder at how you think this news source is not reliable. (gut check: Do you think this writer's lying to us? THAT is the final check -- and if you can't look your friends/family in the eye and honestly say you believe he's lying, then I think he would have to be accepted as reliable --according to the standards Wikipedia laid sown above) -- not trying to argue or be contentious, but just don't wanna miss any reliable sources to verify our claims here. -- your thoughts?71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

OK, I posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=438964125&oldid=438963127 as you asked. (-:/ -- 71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We'll see what the community determines. Thanks for taking it there. 72Dino (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome -and thank *you* for your part.71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops! sorry -- I see a few edits of mine you reverted --in the College tuition article(s) -- I had forgotten (or not known) that if a link is in a Wikipedia article, then it need not be cited in the 'See Also' section -- my apologies -- Big Time -- Major League! (I personally would prefer these 'see also other Wiki' links stay in, but if they're in the article, it's 'close enough for government work,' and will be OK with me. (Not that my opinion matters, but just saying, no hard feelings or argument on these small points.)71.100.178.19 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter links
Hi, I saw you readding some of these links that were correctly removed according to our WP:EL guidelines. Links to Twitter and Facebookare generally not acceptable and generally do not meet WP:ELOFFICIAL unless they are the only such "official" sites we can find. We should only link to the best "official" links of a subject, not every single webpage owned by an article's subject. Before readding these sites, please check to see if there are any better official weblinks out there that can be used in their place.  Them From  Space  02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of WP:ELOFFICIAL, especially the sentence "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites," is that my readding those sites met the guideline. I readded official Facebook and Twitter only if the official website did not contain links to those social media sites.  I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but I don't see where that guideline states that we can link to social media sites if "they are the only such official sites we can find."  It looks to me like we can add other official sites if they add unique content (like social media) and are not linked to the main website (I reverted myself on one that had such links). 72Dino (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But we should also only link to the best official websites. If there is a good official website, why link to a Twitter feed or Facebook profile of an individuals everyday thoughts? What encyclopedic value do they add to our articles (unless an individual is famous because of a Twitter or Facebook page).  Them From  Space  22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the content of the website and social media site is the same, then I agree with you. I also agree if it is somebody tweeting what they had for breakfast.  However, many organizations use social media to provide unique content in a more timely way than their website.  I think either including or excluding official social media sites should be on a case by case basis. 72Dino (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador
Hi 72Dino, I saw your message on the Aventador talk page and have updated the article as appropriate. Zarcadia (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. Odd about the McLaren, too. 72Dino (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your tidy-up of Undie Run
Hi 72Dino - very much appreciated! ---Shirt58 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good job on having the article so well referenced. 72Dino (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoe Crosher
72Dino, thank you for your responses to Jobpiston's edits on the Zoe Crosher article. Full disclosure: I'm the subject's spouse. As a relatively experienced Wikipedia editor, I've left some advice on Jobpiston's talk page. Since I'm in conflict of interest myself I'd appreciate if you or someone else could take a look at what I wrote and, if appropriate, offer a second opinion. Thank you! – MirancheT C 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments on Jobpiston's talk page were very appropriate and well said. I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, but it takes time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia (at least it did for me).  I'm hoping that, with your knowledge of Wikipedia and (obviously) the article subject, the article can be a source of helpful information for the reader.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Blankfein
Any idea on what a person could possibly do with $54 million? Nice that he said he was doing God's work. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but it would be a great problem to have. I need to figure out how to get a job like that. 72Dino (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Stanford University
Hey, I've been working on creating WikiProject Stanford University. As a primary editor of the Stanford University article, I figured this might be relevant to you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

LA Auto Show
Sure, you're welcome to add photos. There are already four photos at the top of the article, so unless you had one you felt was significantly better than those, you should just add one or two photos to the 2011 section - preferably of the new introductions. WP:CARPIX has some guidelines on submitting car photos. And no, I'm not going, I'm just excited about all the introductions. :) --Vossanova o&lt; 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral
Hi, I noticed you are an established editor who has recently been involved with editing Crystal Cathedral. There is currently a discussion going on on Talk:Crystal Cathedral regarding the wording on the article and would like another opinion on the matter, if you can. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

your last edit at missionary (lds) article
Hello, you asked me to discuss external link www.lds4u.com here. I found the link by googling "lds missionary rules" and I find  the link to be useful and very informative. So what is your opinion --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You should discuss the edit at the article talk page at Talk:Missionary (LDS Church). An editor has already started a discussion on that external link. 72Dino (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, but I differ...
Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, in the past when I had trouble with vandals and trolls, but I differ on your last edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=461536456&oldid=461530029#Lack_of_consumer_protection

You took out this part: "and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can pay back," with the explanation that "POV not supported by references from reliable sources," however, you left in this part here:

"Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the student avoid default."

And, I agree with your assessment to leave this part in here.

But look closely at the 2 excepts, Dino:

They're basically saying the same thing... the 2nd excerpt says the lender sees that it's profitable for the student to default.

The 1st excerpts says that the lenders know the student can be more easily victimized without said protections -- don't you agree they say the same thing (in slightly different language)?

So, if you leave in the 2nd excerpt, I would ask you put back in the 1st one.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is correct in reporting this theory -- it really is true: That theory exists -- and the reason that's OK is because, whether the theory is correct or not, the facts underpinning it are cited -- and so we're just reporting the news. (Lastly, you and I both know this theory is probably correct in many instances --human nature being what it is). -- But, in short: There really are facts, and also, there really is this theory based on the facts -- both are true, and both should be reported.

What do you think?71.100.189.115 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the article talk page. 72Dino (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx. I replied to you there.71.100.179.96 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome
I sometimes feel presumptuous deleting revisions without being asked, but I really hate leaving any record of garbage like that.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Corona_del_Mar_High_School_-_Controversies_section


 * Thanks for the info. 72Dino (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * 1) Phearson (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and a merry Christmas to you, too. 72Dino (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That was fast...
Category:Mayors of Huntington Beach, California How did you do this so quickly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I live in Huntington Beach, so I know who the more notable mayors were. Thanks for setting up the category. 72Dino (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

rocker (subculture) ==

Sorry, my inglish are bad, but I now, the rockers (ton-up boys)in the 1960s were commonly referred to asgreasers or grease as an insult by your rivals mods, and Mods never been called as rocker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisehelp (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that and the article already mentions that. The article is not saying that the Mods were called Rockers.  Instead of continuing to put in your edit and have it reverted, I recommend you discuss what you are trying to say on the article talk page here: Talk:Rocker (subculture).  If you continue to add in the edit as it is, it is very likely that an administrator will block your account.  Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BOMI edits
Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. 72Dino (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on the Three Witnesses page. It is appalling the state of that page and as we know who it is the product of, it is clear that a conflict of interest is being violated imo. Please chime in on the talk page under that new section. I would like to see the continual disruption stoped first so that my edits are not for naught. It's apparent that a certain "contributor" over there hasn't the slightest notion of what the purpose of the wiki is. If you can first help in that regard it would be most helpful so we can get back to balancing a highly flawed page.BOMC (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. I have been on Wikipedia for over five years and have over 19,000 edits, but I have stopped editing certain articles and have even taken articles off my watchlist because of the combative approach and article ownership approach he uses.  I may discontinue editing the Three Witnesses and David Whitmer articles in the near future, too.  It's just not worth it to me.  I wish you luck. 72Dino (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * == Citation ==

Sorry about the unclear edit summary on that one. My intent was not to remove the citation, just to move it. It was being used twice, once in the Lead, and once in the body of the article, so I wanted the citation to only show up in the body. I had cut it from the Lead (Ctrl-x) and my next step was to paste it into the Modern times section where it was being called. Between the cutting and pasting I got distracted responding to a query on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Your edits are always well thought out, so I figured it had to be something like that.  I appreciate the note here.  72Dino (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. That particular one wasn't extremely well-thought out. I should have done it in a single edit, but sometimes it's easier to edit the smaller sections one at a time, instead of trying to comb through the whole article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Occidental College
thanks.. not exactly positive how to use this site. it's just he's a well known guy in the finance world, on CNBC all the time, thought he was a good guy to put on notable alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.61.56 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lists of alumni, etc. get rather large so generally only those who already have an article about them are included.  He may be a good person to write an article on.  I recommend continuing to edit articles.  If you're like me there will be a lot of trial and error at first.  Then, read Your first article.  Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Recurring issue
Hi 72Dino, someone has once more added the "third wife" detail to the introduction of Callista Gingrich in a way you have removed before. Do you still agree this does not belong? I also would like to get your opinion on the repeated mentions of Marianne Ginther in the "Personal life" section of the article. It seems excessive to me, but I'd just like to bring it to your attention. Thanks, Joe DeSantis  Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the necessity of including "third wife" in the lede. While it is certainly accurate, I don't think it is necessary except in the Personal life section.  It focuses on the spouse instead of the subject of the article,  who should be the focus in the lede.  Hopefully it can be worked out on the talk page to determine how the lede should be worded.  Regarding the mentions of Ginther, I only saw two and those looked appropriate to me and not focusing too much on her.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the lede. Since your reply yesterday there have been more edits to the first section, including "third wife" and what seems like excessive detail about the Bill Clinton impeachment. Meanwhile, there has not been any real discussion about these details on the talk page in a long while. If you were willing to get involved again, whatever your best judgment, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Joe DeSantis  Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormon Page
I have quoted reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia(see below). The information inserted presents a balanced, objective POV, and follows the section Culture and Beliefs. I have submitted this to Wiki Arbitration Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Bilbobag (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Mormons to resolve this. I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding Wiki Arbitration because your edit history does not show anything like that.  You may want to review Dispute resolution and then go to the article talk page to indicate why you think that content belongs in this particular article.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that user is refering to Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Mormons, which they created. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was created after I reviewed their history.  I appreciate the heads up. 72Dino (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The MedCab listing has been closed due to technical issues, but a new request for DR has been begun by Bilbobag at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Bilbobag tried to give you notice of that request, but had your name wrong, so let me give you notice of it in his stead. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. 72Dino (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"separate Bentley link not needed"
You seem to enjoy playing god so much you have forgotten the wonderful purpose of wikipedia. I and every other user of wikipedia have the right to click on a link to read about the company Bentley, or about the Bentley Hunaudiers, by clicking on Bentley or Hunaudiers. Reverting an improvement because it isn't needed is the most horribly reasoned argument I have heard in my life. Wikipedia isn't needed either, but it is nice to have when users/moderators watch for vandalism and not just wasting our time reverting helpful minor edits that have NO downside. Try having a conscience, your opinion is not the only one that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.105.119 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and put back the Bentley edit. That wasn't a big deal and could go either way.  The only reason I reverted you is because you also removed conversion templates with that edit (see this diff). That WAS a big deal. 72Dino (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how removing the conversion template was a big deal. If you look at original, the wikipedia server had to convert kph to mph, and only displayed mph. I simply converted it myself so it still showed EXACTLY THE SAME mph information, the only difference being the server doesn't have to recalculate every time the page is loaded. I did not change anything that could be construed as a big deal. 20:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.105.119 (talk)
 * You removed the kilometers per hour number. This is an international encyclopedia, so it needs both measurements.  The conversion template shows both and does it with a consistent conversion.  72Dino (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

8: The Mormon Proposition
Hi Dino, Purely out of curiosity... Are you employed by the Mormon church? Or do you do it for love? I find it hysterically funny you've just added a review published by the Mormon church on a film specifically criticising the Mormon church LOL. Light Defender (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know.... I've started a dispute to get reference to the documentary included in the LDS page. [] Light Defender (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. I contribute to a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia because I like the idea of an encyclopedia with current information.
 * Regarding the content from the Deseret News, I was curious what a reviewer that works for that newspaper would state in a review. It seems appropriate to show all reactions to that film. 72Dino (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Macan
Thanks for the speedy fix of my careless typo on the Porsche Macan article! Warren (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for updating that article so quickly. 72Dino (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Liv Mildrid Gjernes
how the images can be on wikipedia if it says in the text image that is copyright on them? I can not get it to make sense 80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. As I am not really an expert on image copyrights on Wikipedia, I recommend you pose this question at Editor assistance/Requests.  Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

About my editing of "My People Were Fair..." and other album labels
Hello. I'm sorry for putting for U.S Record labels first on so many albums. I did this because i'm from the U.S and put them first because they're the labels I know them on, and some of the articles didn't even have the U.S label names on them to begin with. I didn't mean to mes anythig up while doing that if I did. I won't do it anymore. And in the event that I do edit something, I will write what I changed. Thanks.72.70.212.183 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormon name IPA stuff
Hey, can you drop me a line at sburke@cpan.org ? I want to file attach a zip of files I just made: those Mormon name pronunciations in two formats plus the Perl program that did the translation.

Backing up: wow, I didn't know that the page you pointed to even existed! ( Book of Mormon pronunciation guide ) I would have just pasted in its pronunciations instead of just adding "Pronunciation Needed" eleventy-two times. But I wouldn't have been able to do it directly; I would have had to do the format-translating in my head, because your question was well-considered: those transcriptions' formats aren't like IPA, and are unintelligible to anyone not familiar with that particular ad-hoc format. But I was able to write this little auto-translator program that converts the entries to IPA. After all, it's just a matter of substituting one symbol for another, for each symbol...

The output is IPA that follows Wikipedia's IPA-for-English guide (IPA_for_English) to a quite acceptable degree, I dare say. (I also dare to say that that IPA_for_English at many points completely baffles me, and I have degrees in this stuff. Too many cooks, not enough pot to go around, etc.  But it's the standard we gotta follow, hfff.)

I've looked over the list of the entries from my program's output and I haven't seen anything obviously bungled or implausible; as to accuracy, I don't know enough about Book of Mormon pronunciation to know from first-hand hearing of the names, but my symbol-for-symbol translator does seem to have worked right, given the input. But it wouldn't hurt to run this past a linguist with first-hand knowledge of stuff.


 * I think someone besides me would probably be better at pronunciations and their formatting. You may want to post your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement.  There are a number of active editors there, so it is likely that at least one knows both the Book of Mormon and IPA.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon: "[Ll]and [Nn]orthward"
In bonking around in entries about Mormon names, I ran into a talk about the Land Northward. In some occurences, just lowercase, in occurrences, with an capitalized. Ditto for a few mentions of Land Southward. Googling on "Land Northward" shows hits about this being, at least in some cases, a particular place in Mormon historic placenames, not just "due north from the setting of this particular chapter's story". Wikipedia has no entry on Land Northward, and I know not a speck enough of Mormon historic placenames to make a stub saying anything more than "Land Northward is a place mentioned a bunch of times in the Book of Mormon PLZ EXPAND PLZ OK?". But I'm hoping you might know someone whose proverbial cuff you could tug on to at least make a one-paragrapher stub and some xrefs and/or external links.

BTW, if you know anyone who really likes making stub entries, a lot of the personal names mentioned here and there in Mormon history entries are just links to Letter-anchor items in List_of_Book_of_Mormon_people, like List_of_Book_of_Mormon_people. Someone particularly fastinated and fastidious could track down cases of that and make stub entries. I recollect that the pages with big geneology charts are quite rich in things that just link to List_of_Book_of_Mormon_people instead of to a personal entry.
 * The Wikiproject I mentioned above may be a good starting point. I don't think an article about the Land Northward is necessary, but there is already mention of it in Jaredites. 72Dino (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith
'''I CREATED THIS WHOLE TIMELINE. SO PLEASE DISCUSS IT NOW!'''--217.230.233.146 (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologice for my shouting. But please discuss this timeline and do not move to some other topics.--217.230.243.50 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I choose not to discuss the timeline. I made some minor changes to it for neutrality, but that is all I intend to do regarding the timeline.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Aventador
Please explain your logic behind the Aventador not being a supercar.

When you say, "not on wikipedia," you seem to be implying we can not objectively use the term "supercar" on this site. In which case, several automobile related pages are due for massive revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.58.31 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is correct, the term "supercar" is not used as a classification on Wikipedia per WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions under Classification. The consensus is that the term is too vague for an encyclopedia.  If you disagree with the consensus, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions.  And there are probably articles that use the term; however, that usage is incorrect as it stands right now on Wikipedia.  I hope this explanation helps.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you took the discussion to that talk page. That's good.  Just so you know, I'm not opposed to calling it a supercar if the consensus changes regarding the use of that label. 72Dino (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Aventador is not just any sports car. It is very exotic, it looks like a car from 2017 (not 2012), it goes from 0-100 kh/h (0-60 mph) in 2.9 seconds, and it can go ≈350 km/h (217 mph).  yeah, there should be a "supercar" category for the Aventador, Reventon, and others. Jawadreventon (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * However, as of right now there is not such a category on Wikipedia per WP:WPAC. You may want to discuss that on the talk page of that WikiProject. 72Dino (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Missionary (LDS Church)
Hi. This is re your reversion of my edits to Missionary (LDS Church). I edit under a reasonable belief that what I'm editing is the truth. 175.142.129.98 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit was unsourced. Please see the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. 72Dino (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Statements
The Congressman's own twitter account is a reliable source. That is the same sort of source used against Congressman Anthony Weiner. It was considered legitimate by every news source, so it should be considered so by Wikipedia.


 * The Twitter account is not a verified one so may not belong to Rohrabacher (see WP:TWITTER). A better source, such as one from the Washington Post or The New York Times, would be more acceptable under WP:Reliable sources and under WP:Biographies of living persons.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher article
hello dino i will

Pagani
Hey Dino, when in Italy we say Pagani we are speaking about the city, so the address Pagani should be about it. The Pagani Automobili S.p.A. has another address. So, that address need to be update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Antonio Sorrentino (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I am going to move this discussion to Talk:Pagani so that more editors can weigh in. 72Dino (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Class Project
We noticed your comment on the Higher Education in the United States article. Yes this was a class project for an MS in teaching program at Northwestern University. The students had collaboratively edited and peer reviewed their contributions using Google doc or blogs prior to making changes in Wikipedia. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, so if there are any issues with their posts, I would appreciate feedback. Seeing how active you are as an editor, I want to thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. You and other active Wikipedians have helped a couple dozen teachers see that Wikipedia is not the wild west that the media portrays it as. There are thoughtful, rigorous editors behind every article. p.s., we are done editing Wikipedia. The next unit is on gaming.Visionovervisibility (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Various editors will certainly review their edits and there may be tweaks to keep in line with the Manual of Style and Wikipedia policies.  I hope your students check back to see what changes were made to their work as part of the learning experience, and that it was a positive experience for them.  I also hope that this was a successful project and that the page on university projects will be helpful in the future.  Regards, 72Dino (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Greater LA Auto Show sign.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greater LA Auto Show sign.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Temples with other "official pages"
I went to go add a new section to the infobox to accommodate this new website, but on review it looks like someone (maybe even me but I don't remember doing it) had already created a "website" parameter to be used for the situation where the church makes an official website for specific temples during construction.

To use this parameter, edit the temple data page and replace the line | lds_id             = temple-name with | website            = http://mormontemples.org/eng/hartford where the link is the full url to the new page. By using the full url we can link to custom official websites like http://nauvootemple.com/index.htm.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Trödel 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just tried it with the Indianapolis Temple and it worked fine. 72Dino (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America
Hi, Dino. I noticed a couple of new editors were having some trouble on the talk page for CCA, and that you had just edited the article. They seem to be well-intentioned, but are also casting about, a little, trying to figure out how to respond to the problem they raise there. For example, they took the dispute here, to DRN. Since your recent edit touches on the same issue they're trying to resolve on that talk page, I thought you might like to comment there. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I found the article through the discussions at DRN. I don't know much about that subject (that's why I just did some formatting), but if I have some time I'll try to help out too.  Regards, 72Dino (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure; thanks. Nor is it really my bailiwick, although I'm mildly interested in the subject because the company has done so much lobbying to get laws changed in its favour. But I don't like to see new users run into the kind of frustration they encountered at that article, either. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:PSTourism
I disagree with filelakeshow and I've blocked the account. It was a good report and a clear violation of the username policy. WP:UAA is not a "promotional username only" board, it's a username violation board.--v/r - TP 23:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:SSA1900
FYI, I've been monitoring (and mentoring) this user for a few weeks. The Alexander Construction copyright material is the first such instance I've seen of a cut & paste. SSA1900 has learned from my corrections, and I hope s/he will continue. With that in mind, I think the was not needed in that  would have served quite well. If you would un-bite the talkpage comment (e.g., switch templates), I'd appreciate it. --S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that template and I also much prefer it in this situation. Be glad to change it (and I just did). 72Dino (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--S. Rich (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Here is where I found the template: WP:WARN.00:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Userbox suggestion
Suggest you display it -- with pride! --S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the heck of it, I counted about 32 (thx for checking!) times (user page alone, not counting user talk page). 72Dino (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't checking -- it was another instance (done in fun) to push up the count.--S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making today more enjoyable. Have a good one! 72Dino (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

12.129.87.3
Have you reported him any where? Apart from teh POV and attacks he's also 3RR on at least 2 articles today.Meters (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see it. I'll add a 3RR comment to it. Meters (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks for your help. The IP is obviously not here to edit constructively. 72Dino (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just reported to AN/I for personal attacks. We'll see which gets them blocked first, the edit warring or the name calling- Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 days for edit warring, POV etc. Meters (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

New User
Dino- I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm interested in updating the wiki of a company I work for. I know this is generally frowned upon, but there are some glaring inaccuracies that need editing. You have reverted other users' attempts to correct these issues in the past. I do think you were justified in reverting the edits, but the users did appear to be doing the right thing. I'm just looking for general advice on going about this since I don't want to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. G.Gracchus (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend first reading Conflict of interest. Then, if you feel a change should be made to the article, the most common approach is to propose a change on the article's talk page.  Then an uninvolved editor can make the change.  That's my 2 cents worth, anyway.  Thanks and good luck, 72Dino (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Trustworthiness of Scripture
You reverted my changes, I'm guessing because of this text:


 * "Though Mormons consider the Bible as scripture, they believe its text had been corrupted and thus is less trust-worthy than the three additional scriptures they adopted: The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrine and Covenants."

What did you feel was incorrect about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystagogue (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * References from reliable sources state that Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. References do not state that the LDS Church teaches that the Bible is less trustworthy, so I think the original wording in the article is a better representation of references.  I also disagree with the wording that Mormonism rejects monotheism because that may give readers the wrong impression (again, I think the original wording is more appropriate.)  If you still feel your wording belongs, you may want to discuss at Talk:Mormonism and Christianity. 72Dino (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohio University editor
It's pretty obvious that one person is behind all three of the accounts involved in editing Ohio University and other related pages such as WT:UNI. How much rope do we give this person before filing an SPI or just outright asking an admin to block two of the accounts? ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about SPI also. I think it is just starting to get worse with "new" editors continuing to show up.  72Dino (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was just rying to track down one of you to ask the same question. The only thing that would hold me back would be the worry that I was filing an SSI a little precipitously, but it seems we're all about equally suspicious here.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and submitted the case at SPI. Seems like it meets WP:DUCK.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a comment myself. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I, too, added a brief comment.  Hopefully we can nip in this bud and get back to the business of writing and updating articles. ElKevbo (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of editing the Christianity page
I would like to explain my actions. Actually, Christianity is trinitarian in doctrine. Hence, I deleted the non-trinitarian cults from the Christianity page. As for the footer, I was actually trying to edit it but couldn't, so I decided to just delete the footer from that one page as I didn't know how to revert it back. I do not like to be called a vandal just for performing what I thought was just to the Christianity page, as I am knowledgeable about this topic. Mirianth (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that it wasn't vandalism, just a content dispute. When I see an editor blanking article sections without explaining their actions in an edit summary, blanking their talk page to remove warnings, and then have a sockpuppet/meatpuppet case set up about them, it had all the earmarks of vandalism.  However, stating that you "deleted the non-trinitarian cults from the Christianity page" is your particular point of view and not one that everyone subscribes to nor is it the consensus on Wikipedia.  Thank you for now taking the discussion to the Christianity talk page and we'll see what happens there.  72Dino (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Covey article comment
Thanks for your note on my talk page. My thinking is that the previous version had like 4 ways to present dates - when you looked at the Reference Section, it was a mosh of different presentations. I merely tried to make it uniform, and the way I chose makes it the cleanest-appearing now (in my humble opinion, of course). --Spray787 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And believe me, I'm glad you made the format uniform (along with all the other cleanup you did). I'm just saying that the MDY format was used first, the most, and is more common for U.S. topics like Covey.  It's not a huge deal, though.  Thanks for your reply.  72Dino (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A
Hi Dino, can you explain to me what you mean by "you may want to provide a reference that the company is a sponsor rather than the foundation" for my edit? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this is the article about the company Chick-fil-A, there should be a reference that this company, rather than the WinShape Foundation which is a separate entity with a separate Wikipedia article, sponsored those organizations. You may also want to identify how these organizations are sponsored.   72Dino (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "Winshape" is, my reference mentions Chick-fil-A directly...
 * "Anti-gay groups who have benefited from the fast-food chicken money include the Family Research Council, Exodus International and Focus on the Family."
 * I'm assuming you read the reference now but i'll post it here Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The news outlet may not be differentiating between the two organizations, although they should. The WinShape article lists donations to these same organizations, so it is somewhat unlikely (although possible) that both Chick-fil-A and WinShape donated to them.  You may want to click through to the WinShape Foundation article.  Also, do you have another reference, perhaps one from a little more neutral source, that would clarify this area? 72Dino (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1
 * This one mentions it directly but since it is Chik-fil-A's organization, ie owned by them, shouldn't it be mentioned in Chick-fil-A? 2
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, it is already. I'm fine with that then. Thanks for discussing this with me. I wish you had contacted me before reverting me but what's done is done. Have a nice day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about discussing it via edit summaries instead of your talk page, you have a good point. Just some additional information for you.  WinShape is a 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation, so it is not owned by Chick-fil-A.  However, Chick-fil-A is the major contributor to the foundation and S. Truett Cathy is the president.  But legally they are separate.  (I was looking all this up on WinShape's Form 990 when you were posting here).  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that clears things up a bit better. Thanks for the explanation. Have a nice day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

24.15.129.148 edit summary vandalism
Hi. I'm looking for some advice, please. This editor has learned how to vandalize edit summaries, not the actual articles or their talk pages (see this and especially this). My concern is that leaving edit summaries like these in place may encourage further similar behavior. Should the two summaries in question be redacted in some way (via suppression maybe), or is it something we should just ignore? I've looked around WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and some other places, but haven't been able to find anything that specifically addresses this situation. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like an admin has already suppressed the edit summaries. The IP now is making edits and reverting themselves.  None of the edits made thus far by the IP have been useful, although except for the juvenile edit summaries they are not vandalism.  I hope an admin would block the IP for disruptive editing if this continues.  Thanks for the note, 72Dino (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and, for the record, I agree with your assessment and share your hopes. I was just wondering about the proper protocol to follow for getting an edit summary redacted; WP:AIV doesn't seem to be geared for it and, although unquestionably disruptive, it didn't seem to be severe enough for WP:AN, WP:ANI or WP:OS. Besides that, using WP:AN or WP:ANI would require me to notify the editor in question, which I'd rather not do (a la WP:DONOTFEED). Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know the appropriate place. I would think WP:ANI to get the help of an admin, but I see your concern about notification.  Maybe just going directly to an admin and hoping they have time to help out would work.  Wish I could help . . . sorry.  72Dino (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RFO. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 72Dino (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had considered WP:RFO, but it didn't seem to cleanly fit any of the criteria described, except maybe #5, "Certain gross vandalism" (I just wasn't sure what that entailed). If I run across something similar in the future, it's nice to know that this is an option, after all. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Devereaux
Thank you, Dino, for the infobox on Jackie Devereaux. She's contacted me via talkpage and protested my deletions of unsupported material on "her" page. Despite requests to follow WP Guidance, she reverted well founded edits. (And I sought page protection.) I'm interested because I've hoped that her article could adjunct notability for Desert Star Weekly -- but, quite frankly, I doubt she can achieve notability status. (I have not come up with any notable RS on her.) Still, your contribution should help demonstrate that we are working to improve WP.--S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. I'll see if I can help out a little with the article, but meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO may be a problem.  72Dino (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help!
I've made 3 articles so far, and they have all been marked for speedy deletion by the same person because he thinks I'm advertising. But I'm not! I'm just adding things to Wikipedia that weren't on in the first place. He also thinks my username is advertising - it's not! I only joined Wikipedia yesterday, but it's already against me. How do I post something without it being speedy deleted or reverted? LatestAutos (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is just what you have already done, that is, contest the deletion on the article talk page. The second thing to do is not be concerned if the articles are deleted.  That happens to many editors and is sometimes part of the learning process.  Hopefully other editors will explain why articles or content are deleted so you can learn more about editing on Wikipedia.  Don't become too frustrated and good luck. 72Dino (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has deleted the Nelson Racing Engines article that I did. Can I do another one? If I can, if I add more information (what cars they have worked on, etc.) would that stop it being deleted again? The person who deleted it said it violated A7 or something, because it "didn't explain why the company in question was important" but it did, because I said they make engines for low-profile car manufacturers. They are making the engine for the Transtar Dagger GT, which is why I created the article. Finally, thanks for editing the Dagger GT article. It is hard to find "credible" references for articles, because when I find one, it isn't allowed by Wikipedia. As you mentioned in your last response, "Hopefully other editors will explain why articles or content are deleted so you can learn more about editing on Wikipedia." Please can you tell me about how to become a useful editor on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. --LatestAutos (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Nelson Racing Engines article would stay, so I wouldn't try that one again.  It doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines, which means there is not much coverage of the company in reliable sources like newspapers, journals, and so on.  The best way to become a useful editor?  My opinion (and you get what you pay for there) is to read the links in the welcome message I left on your talk page as well as the links in this paragraph.  Look at other articles, particularly Featured articles to see their format, wording and references.  Best, 72Dino (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Focus on the Family". Thank you. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Larson article
I notice you declined the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Larson that a new editor submitted. I understand the issues with this original version but I have the feeling that I can help make this a worthwhile article, but it may take some time. I'm not that familiar with 'Articles for creation'. . . will this article stay on this page indefinitely so either the original submitter or others can work on the article? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there 72Dino,


 * With the exception of article's that have a pressing issue (Copyright violation, attack page et cetera) AFC article's are kept permanently. Actually, There are currently about 60k declined AFC article's floating around. So yes, all the time in the world to improve the article.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

72Dino-do you know why the article was rejected? Any input you have on what would help improve this article would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusinessboyNY (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi BusinessBoyNY: The template indicated the article was rejected because:


 * "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject."


 * These will be fairly easy fixes and I will work on them soon. You can look at the edits I do to get an idea of what works on Wikipedia (I've created a number of articles of varying quality).  After we work on the article some more, you can resubmit it.  As I do my routine reading for work I am looking for his name so I can include more citations (I'm a CFO so I try to read quite a bit in the finance area).  No promises, but I think your article can be adjusted so it can be added to Wikipedia.  Go ahead and continue adding references and I'll let you know when I've finished work in how it is worded.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BusinessBoy, I just saw your edits here. Those were exactly some of the changes I was going to make, so you may not even need me.  But there is some formatting I can do that will make it ready to go.  Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

FotF
If you check the history at FotF, you will see what I am 95% sure is a sock. Unless you object to my rewrite for some reason, feel free to push it back to my version, and maybe we can find out for sure. Belchfire (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I'll pass on reverting it to your version, even though I prefer it. There is just too much POV pushing going on in this and some related articles, so I'm going to ratchet back my editing of those.  I don't have much of an interest in the topic and was trying to bring some neutrality to the articles, but I think that may be a lost cause unless a lot of time (that I don't have) is spent on them.  Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, the dispute is not resolved, and I just made that clear at DRN.  Belch fire - TALK  01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it's hard to keep track of that thread. I'm all for keeping it open and hope that more volunteers opine at the DRN.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just suggested a straw poll, in hopes that will clarify the consensus in a way that allows us to move on.  Belch fire - TALK  01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will try to keep my eye on it when I can. This has, unfortunately, been very time consuming.  72Dino (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Chickfila, Winshape". Thank you. --216.81.94.73 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were blocked from editing under the 216.81.94.68 IP address at the Department of Homeland Security, or is that another person there editing the same articles? 72Dino (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Regarding an old DRN that was resolved over the lead
When I looked at this link, I assumed the result of the lead was hashed out in discussion. Then I see the new lead which apparently went against the discussion. This was your diff to the new diff here. I understand that he added in that paragraph but it's contradictory to the body in the opposition paragraph. Especially when I turned it back to follow the LEADCITE policy. Another thing was that it was odd that he agreed that the "misrepresentation of research" doesn't stay in DRN? I'm wondering what your thought is on this. ViriiK (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of the DRN (if my memory serves me correctly), the issue was that the citation from the SPLC only stated that FOTF was an anti-gay group, not that it misrepresented research. There now appears to be a sourced section on misrepresentation of research.  I have not read it, but if it states that research was misrepresented (not an interpretation of references) and is properly sourced then citations do not also have to go in the lead.  But as I stated, I have not read the section to determine if that is the case.  Those are my thoughts.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My question was more of the issue because that A) claims that they are against gay rights but the sources do not match up with it since it deals with same sex marriage which is one of the many issues within that term unless I'm wrong and that same sex marriage is the singular issue therefore the terms are interchangable? The term is extremely broad and can mean anything when it should be quite specific so I believe the same issue also applies, does it not?  ViriiK (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know that much about Focus on the Family, so I don't know what other than same-sex marriage they are against. Same-sex marriage being a right of gays is a POV of some people and some judges.  I imagine the POV of FOTF is that same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage, although I'm not going to go through their sources to find out. That wasn't an area of the lead that I was focusing on.  My concerns were the SPLC opinion with the reference that only supported part of the sentence and its location in the lead, and with the substance abuse issue.  As far as I can tell, those have both been addressed.  I am probably going to take FOTF off my watchlist (not quite sure why I put it there, but sometimes Wikipedia draws you into something in a roundabout way), or at least limit myself to Wikignome work on it.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What we agreed is that we wouldn't give SPLC a prominent position in the lead and attribute its determination of FotF as anti-gay to its conclusions about misrepresented research. I believe we're following this now. We can still mention the misrepresented research, just not the way we did before. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, none of what I added was new; it was old material that had been lost. What paragraph do you believe it is in contradiction to? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You noticed that I'm not talking to you?  Are you being a stalker?  Besides if I was talking to you, I'd talk on your talk page.  ViriiK (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * May I break in here? I'll leave the specifics of what was agreed upon to other discussions.  I just wanted to point out that following this last edit of Dino's this afternoon  was the the only time today that the article lead has reflected the consensus of involved editors and the results of the previous DRN.  That's all I had.  Carry on.   Belch fire - TALK  05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

UC Davis
72Dino:

You SERIOUSLY feel that phrases like "UC Davis has been ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation" have ANY place in a uni wiki's lead???? How is that not peacockery?

It's an honest question.

If you do feel it has a place, fair enough. I don't think it does myself.

Robinsoncano (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have edited many university articles and follow WP:UNIGUIDE. That guideline states the following:


 * In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times."). In the lead, do not give the sub factor rankings obtained in each survey (for example, details like "ranked #x in placements" or "ranked #3 in research" should not be given in lead at all).


 * In this case, UCD is ranked one of the top 10 public universities in the U.S., so I believe this one statement meets the requirements of WP:UNIGUIDE without going into WP:BOOSTERISM. You may want to review the articles of other universities that have become designated Good or Featured Articles.  72Dino (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 72Dino
I agree with your editsummary: "Giving the reader a point of reference is not POV". But the dates were already mentioned. Emphasizing the fact the controversy happened decades later seems like povpushing to me. Arcandam (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. To me describing the timeframe rather than just mentioning dates wasn't POV pushing but noting that the event did not come to light until decades later.  I can see it either way but (obviously) prefer explicitly noting that it occurred decades later.  But I don't feel that strongly about it and wasn't planning on changing it again if removed.  Thanks for the note, 72Dino (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your feedback! Arcandam (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User 108.18.174.123 made a proposal on the talkpage, your input is very welcome! Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WinShape
"Grants and contributions paid by Foundation" A most excellent suggestion. Well-done.  Belch fire - TALK 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll continue looking for sources in addition to the 990 that describe where those funds go beyond the $1,000 contributions that are getting all the press.  72Dino (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

cn for other gay rights issues
Elaborating on the information in the article risks a potential OR issue. It's already problematic that we substitute "campaign against LGBT rights" for the sources' use of "anti-gay" - going into the issues in the article would exacerbate that. I recommend that you remove the tag and begin a section on the talk page where we can discuss the other issues –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The easier approach would be to just remove the phrase "and other gay rights issues." Do you prefer removing that phrase (and just leave the relevant "opposing same-sex marriage") or discuss those other issues on the talk page? 72Dino (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I would prefer the talk page. The organizations' opposition to same-sex marriage is not the beginning and end of the controversy over CfA supporting them. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've listed some of the other issues on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting up that section. I had some non-WP items to take care of.  I am leaving the tag, though, until a consensus is reached on the talk page.  I have also responded there.  72Dino (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
I guess I need to thank you back! -- Mark91  it's my world   20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trying to return the favor. 72Dino (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Libor
Hey. You said something I put on the Libor article had violated copyright, but I am stumped as to how. Can you explain in more detail? You linked to a CRS report that does not mention the correction that I made. Hairgelmare (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize. It looks like someone else did the COPYVIO sometime ago and you were just cleaning up the formatting.  This is the content I was referring to:


 * WP edit: Each day, the BBA surveys a panel of banks (18 major global banks for the USD Libor), asking the question, “At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?” The BBA throws out the highest 4 and lowest 4 responses, and averages the remaining middle 10. The average is reported at 11:30 a.m.LIBOR is actually a set of indexes. There are separate LIBOR rates reported for 15 different maturities (length of time to repay a debt) for each of 10 currencies. The shortest maturity is overnight, the longest is one year. In the United States, many private contracts reference the three-month dollar LIBOR, which is the index resulting from asking the panel what rate they would pay to borrow dollars for three months.
 * Source copy: Each day, the BBA surveys a panel of banks, asking the question, “At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?” The BBA throws out the highest and lowest portion of the responses, and averages the remaining middle. The average is reported at 11:30 a.m. LIBOR is actually a set of indexes. There are separate LIBOR rates reported for 15 different maturities (length of time to repay a debt) for each of 10 currencies. The shortest maturity is overnight, the longest is one year. In the United States, many private contracts reference the three-month dollar LIBOR, which is the index resulting from asking the panel what rate they would pay to borrow dollars for three months.

Sorry about the confusion. If you'd like, I'll change your welcome message to one that does not include anything about copyrights. You clearly did nothing wrong here. 72Dino (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Oops, and thanks for this fix. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. 72Dino (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Debate About California State Route 134
California State Route 134 shouldn't be redirected to Ventura Freeway. All the other California state routes have a page. Route 134 should have a page. 64.95.113.14 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the discussions about the redirect at Talk:California State Route 134. The consensus was to not have a separate page.  If you have new information or reasoning that is not already addressed, I recommend you start a new discussion there. 72Dino (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)