User talk:Morenooso/Archive 2

Alejandro Castro Espín
Hello, Morenooso, como he visto que tienes el español como lengua materna, me dirijo a ti en este idioma, pues apenas domino el inglés. He visto que has puesto la plantilla de no relevancia en el artículo Alejandro Castro Espín que he redactado, con lo que estoy completamente en desacuerdo. Ten en cuenta los datos que aporto en la página de discusión del artículo, que quizás lo que necesita es ser ampliado, pero para eso también se necesita tiempo. Este señor es una de las personas más influyentes del actual gobierno de Cuba, por lo que considero indudable su relevancia. Saludos, --Goldorak2 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Goldorak2 wrote: Hello, Moreno, as I see you speak Spanish like your mother tongue, I address you in this language, since fluency in English is not as good. I saw that you put the Notability template on the Alejandro Castro Espin article I've written, which I completely disagree. Please note the information given in the article talk page, perhaps it needs to expanded, but that also takes time. This guy is one of the most influential people of the present government of Cuba for what I consider unquestionable relevance. Greetings, Goldorak2
 * We need to speak in English because this is an English wiki and others visit my page. I was doing Page Patrol yesterday and saw this article shortly after you created it. Chances are this individual is notable but let's see what you can do to fill out the article. I really don't believe anyone will delete it any time soon. --Morenooso (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this. There are thousands of articles like this, and even smaller. I think it should not lead the squad. His information is enough. --Goldorak2 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.249.252 (talk)

Bishop Gallegos
Many thanks-I am overwhelm and shock. The article came about because I alternate between starting articles about Roman Catholic bishops, members of the Wisconsin State Legislature, and unincorporated communities in Wisconsin. I do have a request concerning the DYK nomination if you would please fill out the nomination?The template is confusing and I am not too familiar with computer technology to do the nomination. You have my permission and I am would like that you be included. I keep up with news events about the Catholic Church and that was how I decided to write the article when I found out Bishop Gallegos is up for canonization.RFD (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the article doesn't qualify: it wasn't created in the last five days (obviously!), and your expansion in the last couple of days doesn't make the article at least five times its previous length. If that hadn't been the case, I would have nominated it.  Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Morenooso (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger
Hello, I realize this was a while ago, but why did you revert my edit at hamburger? If a hamburger is rare, it is completely red in the middle, if it is medium, it is pink. The prior wording was misleading so I fixed it. Beach drifter (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Nelly Furtado
The page is semi-protected from the POVing Portuguese Nationalist IP's though it should be noted we had one non IP jump into the fray from a dormant state to make that one revert out of the blue to help the POV pushing isp's( who was most likely was a sock puppet anyway) who will prob show up sooner or later again POVing the same stance lets just keep an eye out for things because after that anymore dormant accounts spring to life including the other one it may be time for a sock puppet investigation(WP:SPI) which will get them blocked permanently--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully they will get the message. --Morenooso (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin Fröborg back again-- and gone again
Clearly a hoax. Dloh cierekim  20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I kind of knew that as per my comments of your page which is on Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Must be a bad week to give up drugs. Nitey-night! --Morenooso (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Univision
Hi! Generally Wikipedia articles are meant to be based from secondary sources. I would imagine that a secondary source (newspaper article, journal article, magaazine article) would comment on the editing of telenovelas on Univision, and you may use that to source a broad statement on editing like "Univision sometimes edits telenovelas in North America." One needs to have an RS that states explicitly that in order to support a broad statement about editing of telenovelas.

The statement "Content is censored in some North American markets, blurring images of excessive cleavage, backside shots of women in thongs, and in some cases entire segments" needs a reliable secondary source that refers to all of the items. If a secondary source says editing occurs but does not mention all of the examples, then omit the examples that the source does not mention.

If you want to refer to specific instances of editing when describing a particular program (i.e. in the Desmadruga2 article, if you wanted to refer to specific editing in that program) and you are using the program itself (comparing particular airings or versions) as a source, I'm not sure exactly how one would cite that - The Reliable sources/Noticeboard may help with that. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I told you on your talkpage, those online citations are very difficult if not impossible to find. I ask for your trust otherwise, please delete the sentence as it cannot be sourced. Other editors and I are trying to whip this article back into shape but it has taken awhile to get consensus. --Morenooso (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the problems with simply trusting what a user says is that WP:V is a cornerstone of Wikipedia practices - things have to be verified - they can't simply be true - Things have to be referenced unless they are obvious facts
 * Actual plot information from a television show doesn't need a separate citation as the source of the plot is the television show itself.
 * In regards to "Finding citations for the article itself is very difficult as most of its news coverage are self-generated by Univision or its own forums and in Spanish." - The good news is that we can use Spanish sources. In citations the relevant text should be quoted. We can use self-generated Univision coverage (primary sources) - We cannot use user-generated forum posts as sources.
 * You are welcome to use online and in print Spanish sources (I would imagine articles would be discussing these telenovelas)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a source "'Censorship list' bans controversial words from Univision's on-air lexicon." that talks about Univision editing words from on-air programming that may have double-meanings WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand using Spanish language articles. I do it frequently as I speak Spanish and watch Univision regularly even though more than 30 years ago, I would have rather died than watch a telenovela. I recommend deleting the line because it all too general for all the reasons you state above as I was the one who requested page clean-up and initiated the talkpage discussion on the matter. --Morenooso (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case it's great that you are fluent in Spanish since you can easily use Spanish language sources to back up your statements. BTW do you participate in the es:Wikiproyecto Estados Unidos on the Spanish Wikipedia? I do (I know a little Spanish) and I wonder if one could start a child project about Florida on the Spanish Wikipedia. So far Florida has its own portal, but it does not have its own WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have enough projects and pages under Watch. Florida does not interest me at all. Let the Floridians take care of their own wikiproject. Lately when I have added articles to wikiprojects, I have seen some rather snarky no interest edit summaries which one-up me. I'll stick with my own state's wikiproject and those wikiprojects that enjoy my edits. --Morenooso (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that citation you provided does not address all your concerns. It only addresses censorship of words which I have never seen on Univision. --Morenooso (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand it doesn't talk about everything, but it shows that it is likely that the Miami Herald and/or the El Nuevo Herald may talk about this sort of thing in more detail in other articles. If it printed one article about what crazy editing Univision does, it will likely print more. The fact that at least one article about this is in English is a bonus. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's water under the bridge now. --Morenooso (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado
Hey thanks for the message. I can see how that would get messy fast. I think it's fairly clear what the MOS is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it's entirely successful, as I outlined on the talk page. Some of it could be read to be contradictory, though I think the meaning is fairly clear when you read it closely. It shouldn't require that close a reading, though, and the contradictory nature of some of it leaves the door open to wikilawyering I'm afraid. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember it being much clearer. If you look at her talkpage, I tried to delineate either how the MOS bio lead used to appear. Bascially either there or on another bio, it used to say:

If at the time of nationality, a person had X, Y and Z nationality; if born in Z country - that is the only nationality listed unless they demonstrated strong ties to a dual part of their citizenship. --Morenooso (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that would certainly be clearer. It looks, though, like someone's come through and changed it and made it considerably more ambiguous in the process. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 23:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately it has changed because this is a very WP:NPOV issue concerning nationality. Heck, I'm of Spanish descent and know several Spanish descended artists who have the American tag on their nationality. Does it upset me? It used to but now I understand why Wikipedia editors tried to define what nationality should be used in bio leads. In the last day or so, someone else has slapped the main sentence with a clarification needed tag. This will undoubtly lead to more watering down. --Morenooso (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a shame; I confess I don't understand why WP doesn't have stable pages for its policies. He's definitely bombastic, to say the least. ;)  Try to ignore it.  At least he's talking instead of just reverting.  The SP seems to have worked in that respect anyway.  &mdash; e. ripley\talk 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that he may have editted as an Anon IP if it is the user who editted the article twice in the last days. Seveal anon IPs did this: they would edit up to getting a Level Four warning and then either move to another anon IP or get a username.
 * Unfortunately the semi-protection is not permanent. It comes off on April 14th I believe. To tell you the truth, the only reason I am on her article is I like her Spanish songs which I see regularly on MTV Tres. I am ready to hang it up on this article if the anon IPs get their way. I do a fairly good job of protecting my articles under Watch. If they want to violate every rule as one anon IP insisted he had the right to do (because he did not like Wikipedia's rules), then they can have the page. --Morenooso (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to stop reading after I was called a nazi. I detest what that connotates. --Morenooso (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

uh
next time you leave a comment on my page, make sure it makes sense hun and not some BS comment. i just undid an edit. chill out k? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonori47 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You received a valid warning for re-inserting non-valid content back into Univision. Please see: Wikipedia is not the TVGuide. --Morenooso (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

--Morenooso (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor used this edit summary diff which is contrary to WP:UNCIVIL.

I get it from all sides today and people expect me to be flexible?
Parlez vous francais? --Morenooso (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Duck season. --Morenooso (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Golden flow. --Morenooso (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, I'm at the Greyhound Station. . . --Morenooso (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'm not a duck, I'm a Goose and my callsign is broken. --Morenooso (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be the Spanish word for stupid?--Morenooso (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You must remember this. . . a kiss is still a kiss. --Morenooso (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will probably get whacked overnight for this rant but when a user can do this diff to my talkpage, it really shows how some people can make a WP:POINT. --Morenooso (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With a diff like this, I will not join another wikiproject again. Try to help some people and or wikiprojects and you get thrown back in your face. WP:V beep, beep. Thank you, very much. --Morenooso (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, on that no interest from another wikiproject - it came from another Admin whose talkpage seems littered with disgust about how he/she seems to be screwing up by the numbers. --Morenooso (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no interest. You can stay off my page. Thanks in advance. --Morenooso (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An article is tagged with Unreferenced and Clean-up. Probably could stand wiki-defending too. And what's done by an Admin - build a section on editting. Beautiful! --Morenooso (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, if you're familiar with what goes on with many south of the border articles like that one, titilation is the last thing that needs a section being improved on. The regular anon IPs have that trick down pat and place stuff like it's a fansite foro on Univision. --Morenooso (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's kind of funny (NOT) and probably coincidental (probably NOT) that this Admin should wait to edit that article until just I logged in. --Morenooso (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic idea!
He might not necessarily have to create subpages under my name, but if he does so under his own, I can still watch them and help him out. Thank you VERY much for the suggestion! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might need to help him set up the subpages and then encourage him to be patient until your review is done. Good luck. --Morenooso (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Better still. I alerted Srejneth (sp?) to your comment over here.  I'd hate like hell to chase off a well-meaning user.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Initially, I thought Srejneth replied here. It wasn't until I replied here that I realized everyone might be confused - hence, my clarification. --Morenooso (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go. I do believe you may have hit on the answer.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Morenooso (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see the vultures descend on Jaime Escalante
Wow, his article is getting picked apart worst than I have ever seen. --Morenooso (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When a death like this occurs, this article is probably getting ghits as Wikipedia usually has concise info. Nice that these visitors can witness what is being done to his article firsthand. --Morenooso (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't Lie
I did not remove the speedy deletion page from John Dernbach's article. Do not spread lies. Look at the history of Dernbach's page. Your attempts to defame my character are truly ugly. You should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisconsinfellow (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't lie. I saw a tag removal screen on one of the edits which is shown in this history screen. When I next looked at the article, the tags had been removed. I now see that the next user behind you declined the nomination. I will rescind the warning with my sincere apology. --Morenooso (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than revert...
Can you point out the sentence(s) in the three sources you cited that indicate that there are current sanctions on the football team? I'm well-aware that there's the looming possibility of such sanctions, but none have been applied beyond the basketball team. Ergo, the claim in the USC Trojans football article that "The [football] program has recently been subject to sanctions" is not correct. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I will add alleged if that will make you happy. --Morenooso (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is better. However, sanctions needn't be in the lead, either. Perhaps there's a good spot in the "2000–present" section that might be able to fit a small discussion of the Reggie Bush whatnot that's been going on for half a decade... &mdash; Scientizzle 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an edit you could make the first day it showed and properly sourced it. --Morenooso (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably should be in a stand-alone section entitled alleged violations. --Morenooso (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you mention lead paragraph requirements, some of other extraneous info like BCS rankings does not belong either. Why not copyedit the whole paragraph while you're at it to fit lead.--Morenooso (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wales DOB
Please check the history and discussion for this page on this issue, the general consensus has been to accept the date from his birth certificate (aug 7th). Wales is not reliable in this case since he has claimed both the 7th and the 8th as his day of birth at different times. Kausticgirl (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is a note on his article stating his preference. Guess what? Jimbo wins. You're lucky I didn't cite you. Please don't do this again. --Morenooso (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed warning. This new user is edit-warring and was issued a 3RR advice on her talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider
I think my rationale has merit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Wales_(4th_nomination)#Jimmy_Wales. — BQZip01 — talk 04:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not laughing. And, if that is your intent, it definitely is a WP:POINT. I'd advise to close the nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an Admin is about to explain to you. Not good ju-ju beans. --Morenooso (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good night. Last year we tried to delete Jimmy Wales THE PERSON! The front page is loaded with nonsensical/misleading headlines. Smile/lighten up and just laugh a little. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this the wrong way, but please leave my page. --Morenooso (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got it. It was just meant as harmless fun amongst other mischief. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to admit, I was ROTFL when I saw this diff. I would have voted SPEEDY KEEP but the nomination was still open. Nice to know that I got the only vote. Guess the joke is on the tweet flyboy.--Morenooso (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, please stay off my page. --Morenooso (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Are you online?
In short, those are clumsy April 1 jokes, and maybe something that covers up with April 1. As you are going to logoff anyway, better take it easy, smile at something, and don't hestitate to tap me if this resumes tomorrow. Materialscientist (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fairly well known by my friends for having a great sense of humor with accompanying laugh. On Wikipedia pages, I try to demonstrate a NPOV with clear edit summaries. However, we are all human and sometimes I slip into the fray. I plan on doing what you say. I am going to take the day off as I don't want to play judge against an April Fool's joke or a vandalistic edit. I think the other user was serious about the 3RR. Another new user on Jimbo Wales article changed his birthdate which goes contrary to the hidden template stating his desire on the matter. She too issued me a 3RR. Funny thing is, yesterday I helped save a new article she created to which almost all her contributions are made. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Thanks again. --Morenooso (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted "your" report at WP:ANEW board, with the same message, take it easy, ignore the bites, but shout when they cross the line. Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! --Morenooso (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have been absent a bit
Sorry to hear that you were having trouble. I am just a regular old editor though, not an admin, so I don't have any special powers beyond my dazzling charm. :) I've been moving the past couple days and the dust is finally settling a bit, I will try to head back over to the trouble spot and see what I can do if I have a spare moment today.  Take care! &mdash; e. ripley\talk 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. We're all volunteers here and real life takes precedent over Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aventura, Santos, etc
That IP and User:Minie01 are cut from the same cloth. Screaming 'American appropriation!' and trying to spread their original research. It's the reason I stand up to them at Aventura's and Anthony Santos; as I told Minie, it's not personal, as I barely know who Santos is. I think that if they're allowed to roam around here changing who knows how many articles in the way they propose to do, then we'll have real problems with D.R.-related pages, at least (and as you can see, the problem already involves some Puerto Rico-related articles, so it's not inconceivable that eventually articles related to other countries might be affected, too). I think it's necessary to be proactive and educate them about Wikipedia's policies ASAP, and have the proper sanctions brought down on them if they choose to ignore those policies. They won't be able to claim ignorance, right? SamEV (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you on that article too? I saw it on the Recent Page which brought me over because of a previous. I like the group as they have a smooth sound. I read their article and then cross-checked all the singers. Dominican seemed the higher influence both for nationality and musical influence. I see this nationality issue on a lot of articles I follow. As a Page Patroller, I will generally issue a level one warning. The rational editors/users get that. This one came back for more. I don't even think he read about the analysis I did above and which I placed on their talkpage. I have a feeling the anon IP will be back. . . --Morenooso (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like bachata, but I just haven't been listening to that much music for some years. I've been watching and have often edited the Aventura and Anthony Santos articles for over a year. When I began, I knew nothing about either subject. I've since grown to respect them quite a bit, though still considering myself acquainted with only the most basic info about them.
 * I certainly don't know as much about them as user Minie01, a persistent fan girl who insists that people of Dominican ancestry are Dominicans and nothing more, even if American born and bred. And she says she wants to make edits of that kind to all bios of her Dominican artists (she talks that way: "mi artistas dominicanos", and so on; doesn't WP warn against too-closely investing oneself personally in the subjects of articles?). She even argues that since the record label to which Aventura is signed is Dominican, the group is Dominican. (Morenooso, I'm not making this up, sadly!) It's not even half-way rational. So it would be helpful if you helped me keep those articles from sliding into Sillyland.
 * And you called it: the IP did return. I filed a 3RR report. SamEV (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me say that I've already agreed with Minie that Santos can have Dominican categories, in addition to the American ones (i.e. 'American singers' as well as 'Dominican singers', 'Dominican songwriters', as well as 'American songwriters', etc), since he has expressed his pride in his Dominican heritage (while at the same time never renouncing his Americanness, nor his Puerto Ricanness, for that matter, AFAIK). But Minie hasn't accepted that deal, instead persisting in removing "American" entirely wherever she finds it (the lead, the infobox, the categories). SamEV (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I will need to get smarter on their individual bios. I've dealt with some of these anon IPs that really want to push or claim the nationality issue. It makes it harder when you have fansite type editor who is POV'ed on this issue. MOS Bio used to be clearer but it basically comes down to the nationality at time of notability is what goes in the lead paragragh. Ethnicity should not be listed but can be expounded upon in subsequent section(s).--Morenooso (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! However, I was only asking you to help me keep an eye on the articles, not add content (but if you ever have the time and inclination to write anything, please do!). I'm not planning on adding much content myself, except for the occassional bit here or there, especially in cases of dispute. My main concern really is watching out for those POV-pushers whose edits have so often degraded the quality of those articles and who promise even more widespread damage if not opposed. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not edit for content but still need to be smart enough on their bios. The reason for this is if a good faith edit occurs, a revert is not the best way of handling it when a copyedit can preserve it. Looks like the article got semi-protection which should help. I'll do my best to wiki-defend it as I do my other articles under Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I got that reference. I remember seeing some of the reruns when I was a kid. Agent 99 was pre-tty.
 * I'm about to sign off, but let me just show you what I mean re: Minie: and . See? SamEV (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. BTW, the Sorry about that,Chief stuff still slays me. Plus Barbara was easy on the eyes. --Morenooso (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaime Escalante
I agree that that particular editor is the main culprit. I believe he/she is likely acting in good faith, so it's probably best to try to nip it in the bud, although he/she may not listen. I left a talkpage note regarding POV and hagiography. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree they are good faith edits but unfortunately they are not encyclopediac. And then because I have editted the article prior to, on his death and after, I did not want to get caught up in what might be perceived as a 3RR situation. I figured as I said that once the furor dies down, his article will become stable with some copyedits necessary. It appears that you're better suited towards that portion. I will try to just take care of the wiki-defending of his article unless I see a glaring error that needs immediate editting. --Morenooso (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dual citizenships
I have a question for you, regarding Wikipedia's take on dual citizenship/ethnicities of notable people on Wikipedia. We had a little edit war on James Belushi being either "American" or "Albanian-American", because of his background and the two nationalities. How would you classified Alexei Ponikarovsky? He's Ukrainian and he started playing in the NHL as a national of Ukraine. He did not obtain Canadian citizenships until 2007. How should he be listed on Wikipedia? As Ukrainian-Canadian or just Ukrainian? Norum 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the article states that he won a championship as part of a Russian team in 1999. Since he was most likely Ukranian at the time, that would be his nationality. To claim that it is Canadian, which was granted in 2007, would not be appropriate under MOS Bio lead paragraph terms. However, I am not the expert on the subject in this article and do not know his full personal or article history. That is my personal take. --Morenooso (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the slavic races or nationalities could play into all of this. I do not know for certain that he is full Ukranian. I am going off what his article currently states. --Morenooso (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article originally stated that he is Canadian-Ukrainian, but I changed it to Ukrainian only. But Im sure someone will change it back, so I wnated to ask someone more familiar with the issue. Norum 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not the expert on his article. There could be other issues. Your edit summaries are not the best. Cite and write it is the best philosopy. And, I don't wade into articles I don't know. --Morenooso (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A Smith and Wesson beats a full house any time - unless the other guys are packing too. --Morenooso (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! I just saw a guy with a pea shooter taken out by a howitzer. Ya gotta know what the other editors bring to the article before you amble in like Jesse James. --Morenooso (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, hmmm, not sure what the last two posts have anything to with dual citizenships and Wiki? Smith and Weston?Norum 06:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are just general observations. I don't know how much edit history you have with the article you brought here. Normally, I am very reluctant to assert myself in an article unless I feel I am on sure ground and cite Wikipedian policy. Your edit summary diff here left you very open as it could be viewed as flippant and not citing any standard. If you look back to the article you learned about my expertise on this issue, I am very careful to cite:

Rv: Please see MOS lead paragraph and then usually explain my revert on the article talkpage.


 * You did neither of these. Now as to the Smith and Wesson line, it's an old axiom in poker that a gun beats the best hand. Me, being a little flippant on my talkpage, qualified it by saying that if the other players have weapons, one gun is not enough. The odd or funny thing was less than a couple minutes later (you can look at the time of my posts), an anonymous IP who had racked up more than four warnings got into a dispute with an Admin on the Admin's talkpage. Normally Admin talkpages are on Watch by other Admins and users. Well, another Admin saw the insult and blocked the user big time. That where the anon IP (the guy with a pea shooter) got taken out by the Admin (who has the power of howitzer - if need be).


 * In essence, it was kind of cosmic to see my generalization take place less than five minutes after I posted it here. --Morenooso (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OBSERVATION to the article you brought here - I just looked at the subject's history. Your first edit to this article was the revert you wanted to ask about. And, it's the one that I observed as potentially being flippant. Then your only other edit came today. It appears that you reverted Canadian being added without an edit summary. IMHO, you left yourself very open by not citing a MOS standard. MY second observation is that I don't recognize any Admins who might have taken offense to your reversion. In fact, Lvivske has a Ukranian userbox on his userpage (plus he has a barnstar for creating Ukranian hockey stuff) disagreed with you hence the edit war. I think you were extremely lucky. Normally before I wade in with an edit or revision, I review history and editors to size everyone up. Then I like to have some general edits that show I am there as normal editor/Page Patroller. One plus for me is that several Admins and other users recognize that I have a relatively good edit history. That means that like me, when you have to revert, if you sized up the editors - you choose the names you know as being reliable. --Morenooso (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just learned that Ponikarovsky had to give up his Ukrainian citizenship, because Ukraine does not accept dual. That seems to be complicating things a little. Norum 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez
I'm going to request that you please self-revert until the WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues are addressed. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. And, the other editor is an admin and I am a Page Patroller. In a BLP, accurately quoted material are allowed. See my further comment on his article talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates
Hello. On articles such as here (if it's still there) the criteria would be vandalism, not non-notable content. Please take a closer look at WP:SPEEDY. Thank you Tommy (msg) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You tag your way; I'll tag my way. An admin schooled me. --Morenooso (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted a3 - No notable content. a3 is way closer to a7. You really need to hit the books. Vandalism??? --Morenooso (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Chzz  ►  05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just tried to set up the archive name to brownbear X, where X = number of the archive. Not sure if that worked. --Morenooso (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; since I updated your talk page to archive I've been trying to leave a message explaining what I did. Unfortunately, I'm having problems connecting to the internet.


 * I intended to say that - I set it to archive things that are 7 days old, that very short threads and threads with no timestamp will not be archived automatically, and that the process will kick in within 24 hours - the bots run every day.


 * However, because you changed the archive names, the index thingy will not work, nor will the 'archive box' template, at least not with the 'auto=yes' parameter, because that expects the archives to be called "Archive n"; I'm not too sure about how to make it work with other names - you could either try and figure it out in the help for Template:Archivebox and User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, or - much easier - change it back again, before the archiving gets started.  Chzz  ►  17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also you'd need to remove the redirect on User talk:Morenooso/Archive 1, which will cause problems too.  Chzz  ►  17:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I have removed the archiving for the time being. I was concerned that you might not read the above for a while, and if the bot starts archiving before we sort this out, it's going to further complicate things.


 * I will place the code below - with the original archive name. This is the code that I believe will work. If you wish to accept those names (due to the complexity of alternatives), then reinserting the below, and removing the redirect I mentioned above, should make it start working.


 * Hope this makes sense. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look in awhile. I may just go back and reinsert it the way you set it up. Some people don't know what my user name means and I thought it would be cute to give them a clue. --Morenooso (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see - but I think that might be best done a different way, with a little picture or something perhaps? Having a non-standard name greatly complicates things, because of the templates. Anyway - all up to you - it can be done. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Gypped again
If you want to open a sockpuppeting case, you need to go to WP:SPI and fill out the form. Adding the SPI macro without actually creating the case just creates a redlink.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried but the page is locked. I submitted one on another page that needs a clerk to follow up on it. --Morenooso (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, I was hitting the wrong button! I was gypped again - so to speak. --Morenooso (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Gyppedagain. --Morenooso (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you....
Thanks. I think I'm next on his list. . . --Morenooso (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are consolation prizes for the unwanted attention you end up receiving for taking an aggressive stand against vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG is protected indefinitely. The anonIP needs another 80 to 300 seconds of infamy again. Too bad it can't develop a hobby. --Morenooso (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mail-order bride
I'm not sure I see how the IPs edits would be considered vandalism. Please reconsider your use of revert and choice of templates. --Onorem♠Dil 03:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He deleted text with citations, with more than then three edits, and was issued standard delete substitute warning templates. He has reverted twice with uncivil summaries and was just reverted by another regular editor/protector of the article. I have been on the article for quite a while now and see deletes like this all the time. I issued standard warnings. --Morenooso (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I must have an idea of what I do as a Page Patroller. Just look one or entries up and see:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Gyppedagain. --Morenooso (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two out of three edits had clear summaries...and the third was directly related to one of the other two. Your first 'standard' warning said not to remove content without a valid summary. Asking you to justify yourself instead of simply using revert isn't uncivil, and it certainly shouldn't lead to a final warning. Don't give vandalism warnings for things that aren't vandalism. I have no idea what your link is supposed to prove, but I don't see what it has to do with this editor or their edits. --Onorem♠Dil 03:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Template:Uw-delete2 which is the standardized template. I am a Page Patroller and regularly issue warnings. I have never been told not to do this by an admin. If you like you can review my Contributions. I try to leave a good clean edit summary on all (what I did and what was left on a user talkpage). If you just review my contribs for the sockpuppet case listed in this section and how I protected a user talkpage, you might get a feeling for what I do on Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What would have been wrong with starting with uw-delete1? Why did you escalate to a final warning for the second template? --Onorem♠Dil 03:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He did three initial edits with deletions which why I started with delete2. On his talkpage with the delete2 warning, I gave him advice asking him not to delete content along with a request to discuss deletions (to get consensus). If you don't think he violated WP:NPA with me, I'd be glad to apologize to him as I viewed his edit summaries and reverts as escalation. --Morenooso (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And, I will even rescind the warnings along with said apology. --Morenooso (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you look at a majority of his contributions, he has a haughty attitude and leaves what other editors would consider uncivil edit summaries. Again, if you think that is okay and that he should pop into articles and delete material like he seems to do, I will be glad to apologize to him. --Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of edits made before being warned shouldn't dictate which template is used unless it's blatant. If you're leaving a first warning for something that isn't blatant vandalism, please consider starting with a first tier template. The IP eventually violated NPA, but IMO, it was only after you gave them the final warning. I agree that they should go to the talk page if challenged, but I disagree with the way you handled what appears to be a good faith editor. I appreciate what you're doing as a page patroller. I'm not nearly as active as I used to be, but I used to do quite a bit of patrolling myself. It's easy to expect the worst when there's so many blatant vandals, but WP:AGF and WP:BITE seem to be ignored too often IMO. Anyway, I've also asked the IP to comment at the talk page. Wasn't trying to jump on you...I just didn't see why this case was handled so aggressively. I think things will work out fine here. Have a good night. --Onorem♠Dil 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All I know is that after all my work today, I really feel like bit by this section. --Morenooso (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Morenooso
Hello, the post you deleted of mine was a joke I had with a friend of mine. We made it together, and It was a harmless amusing joke with no intent of attacking her. We had the full intention of deleting it and we are very sorry for wasting your time. I will use my editing privileges for good in the future. Thanks! Caribegirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribegirl (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: How about the tag for User:65.96.66.80
Hey there Morenooso. We don't always tag IPs, as they are liable to change, also, IP editors don't have userpages. However, I have now tagged this IP's talk page with a tag that says that it has been used by Gyppedagain. Hope this is okay. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, the tag used is SpitfireTally-ho! 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll put that on my handy, dandy reference page. --Morenooso (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Humphrey Fleming Senhouse
Pretty good, thanks - how are you?

And if anyone asks, I was only attracted to the article because of his name...it's like something out of Dickens. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She (my girlfriend) is asking. Not too bad, yourself? Know the difference between me and a church mouse? --Morenooso (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad at all.


 * You've got me curious - what's the difference? Please tell me it doesn't involve a pun on the name "Senhouse". -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A church mouse goes to the same church. --Morenooso (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TheGreaterGood
Hi, can you please explain what is wrong with my page? I am very confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector22 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * a7 means it is non-notable and worthy of being Speedy Deleted by an Admin. You can read the two notices of proposed SD which are on your talkpage for further details. --Morenooso (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning?
I think you got the wrong guy... Drmies (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I apologized on that user's talkpage. Please see thisDIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw--thanks! Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Univision#Univision Productions
I think that list is large enough, and by far, to be spun off into its own article. So do you think I should go ahead right now and create List of programs produced by Univision? SamEV (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought doing that and did the deletion. But, MOS allows this info but in a combined narrative/list form. I reverted myself because I did not want to create the list. If you feel comfortable doing, please do and create See Main|Article (Article = list you created) link into the article. --Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. But I have no prose to add right now, so eliminated the section entirely and just added a "See also" link to the list.
 * Now it's off to do some clean up work at the new list. SamEV (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. March Madness is over and I can resume a normal life. --Morenooso (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awwww. Well, I'm sorry your team didn't win—if its name was Butler.
 * No, I'm not a Duke hater; But I usually root for the underdog, and that wasn't Duke. SamEV (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually like Coach Mike K. for all he did with the Olympics. I would rather have seen Butler win too as the underdog story usually resonates. --Morenooso (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Coach K seems like a good guy. But his dancing needs work (and Bob Knight's, etc). Maybe that's a job for Underdog. SamEV (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've grown to like him in the last few years. I used to hate his guts because he seemed too self-assured or smarmy. I enjoyed that he seemed humble tonight in describing Butler and the win. --Morenooso (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I started out hat-, er, not liking him and them much, either. But over time I realized he's just a guy who's good at winning.
 * Thanks for the pop culture education. I'm doing my best to keep up. :) SamEV (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No hay de que. --Morenooso (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Scooby I do know. I'd heard of Underdog, too. TTFN. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, you will love this one! --Morenooso (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure; Yo quiero Taco Bell had a good run. Made chihuahuas very popular pets. Hmm.... Did Paris Hilton get hers because of that ad? That's a very important question that I hope is answered some day. Some day...
 * I think that some of the "guide-adders" (can't think of the correct word to call them right now) might have gotten the message already but are just being vexatious. For those who genuinely don't know, I'm about to add a message asking them not to add guides. SamEV (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess so. I already left them warning messages. --Morenooso (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to help me clean up Telemundo some days from today or next week? SamEV (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me look it over. --Morenooso (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right.
 * The redirect's done. It's tested, and retested. Check it out. SamEV (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the man! I looked over Telemundo's article and am reviewing its history now. --Morenooso (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weirdly, I'm all 'TV-related article'-ed out, right now. That's why I decided to wait a few days (I'd say, until Friday-ish) to 'recover'. Don't be shy about reminding me if I forget, OK? SamEV (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be min-status Friday and Saturday. I have some heavy duty commitments. The article's talkpage has recommendations. --Morenooso (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "min-status"? What's that mean exactly? I get the gist, though: you won't be around much or at all. Good luck.
 * The redirect is up and running.
 * And LMAO about Secret Agent Man. For me the reference is this guy. LMAO. SamEV (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mucho. Not bad, Ace. Too bad he broke-up with what's her name? --Morenooso (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar!
 * Ya get no argument from me about Ana.
 * I should have said that the song is played over a very funny portion of an Ace Ventura movie, so that's what that classic song evokes for me. SamEV (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "David Spade" are fighting words for me! SamEV (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He slays me. --Morenooso (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh
I'd trout you if I hadn't made exactly the same mistake! Thanks a lot for reverting the other edits on my user talk page. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should. That was my first boo-boo. The second was warning another user who protected you. !--Morenooso (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * unlucky. By the way, thank you for your kind words on my talk page, I'll try and get back to you if I ever think of running for adminship. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, is trout me the latest, hip-hop slang for what the anon IP said to you?--Morenooso (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the various wikinatories; must be trowser trout related. --Morenooso (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. Nah, it was for this SpitfireTally-ho! 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen that vandalism recently and it wasn't just on that page but another I have on Watch. Too bad your talkpage on Watch occupies half my screen. ;) --Morenooso (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OOPS, I just asked for it!!! I wonder if Christmas will come early? --Morenooso (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * has protected your talk page now, so hopefully that'll put an end to it. Anyway, I'm logging out now, thanks again for your help and good humour. Also, that was my cookie! Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't I mention. . .--Morenooso (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess I got trouted by that anon IP today. I wonder what I said to it? I don't recognize the numbers. Oh well, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go. ..
 * Yep, unlucky. Sorry about that. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Listen buddy, they don't make flea collars in my size! --Morenooso (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

José Horacio Gómez
Hello. I think is more accurate and neutral to say Considered by some journalists to be theologically conservative than Considered to be theologically conservative. Who considere that? The references are from journalists, not S.T.D. Thank you. --87.220.57.39 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. You're inserting your opinion which is original thought commentary. --Morenooso (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No creo. No he puesto ninguna opinión mía. Alguien incluyó la opinión de un periodista, con referencias. Hay que decir quién opina eso. No es un hecho, es una opinión. ''It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[2] A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.'' ¿Hay algún teólogo que opine que es teológicamente conservador? Sea lo que sea lo que eso signifique. Un abrazo. --87.220.57.39 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to speak in English as this is an English wiki. If anything, by virtue of his order, this archbishop is considered theoology conservative. Very rarely are you going to find a journalist quote another journalist unless you're talking about a breaking report or quoting someone like Walter Cronkite. Even then, if they can find a better third party neutral source, reporters will use that. No where in any of the cited articles do you find the words you inserted. In fact, the cited article Jose Gomez says, A long affiliation with the conservative teaching group. . ..

Two mistakes in only one phrase: Verbum Dei is not Opus Dei. None of them are orders. NPV states: attribute the opinions to specific groups. The opinion of the reporter is not obvious. Pero no voy a discutir más, así que haz lo que quieras. Un abrazo. --87.220.57.39 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs which now disturbs me. He is conservative by nature of his order. Please drop your edits. --Morenooso (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I've disturbed you. It wasn't my intention. English is not my mother tongue, as you know. I'm three years old in spanish WP. Bye --87.220.57.39 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey
A new user asked for help in getting some Wikipedians to complete this survey] - anonymous, and only for research. If you have a few spare minutes, perhaps you could complete it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My time is limited this morning. I will take a look tomorrow when I have more time. --Morenooso (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just clicked on the link without hovering over it to see where it would take me. Unfortuately, it went offsite from Wikipedia. I am very reluctant to go offsite almost anywhere. For that reason, I decline to participate. --Morenooso (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GWB speedy redirect deletion.
It is speedily deletable, but you used the wrong reason. It is not A7 (NPOV-BIO) but rather G10 (attack page). SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought using that one and hunger got the better of me. Now that I have had a bite, you're absolutely right! --Morenooso (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hit a new low - Monica Foster
Well, there's always a first time for everything and I just did it with Monica Foster. What am I doing? Declined the PROD; saved a pornstar. What's next? --Morenooso (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Stupid question about a deleted article's re-creation like Justin Munos
Re your message: While the triangle warning icon is used on level three warnings, I view the CSD warnings as a level one warning. So I tend to issue uw-create2 if the article is recreated. I will sometimes jump to uw-create3 if the editor in question has a whole pile of CSD warnings on their talk page. If it is just two or maybe three CSDs on their talk page, I might issue a uw-create2 as an extra reminder. Sometimes it depends on what kinds of articles are being created. If they are just goofy articles obviously made by kids bored as school, I tend to be a little more lenient with the warnings. But if they veer into insulting, vulgar, etc. areas, then I bump up the warnings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I blocked the account as it was obviously setup by the company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Washington Student Math Association
Please read "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". Essentially, please explain how an article which reads "Washington Student Math Association (WSMA) is a non-profit organization in Washington State." contains an assertion of notability? Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the UnderConstruction tag? Who do you think placed it? I am well within my rights as an editor to decline a SD.--Morenooso (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never said you didn't. It would perhaps be helpful in future if, when declining a speedy deletion nomination, you could actually leave a reason why rather than simply making a blanket statement through the edit summary and talkpage notification. Ironholds (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, anyone can decline and can just state, Declined. And, if your memory serves you, I did you the extreme courtesy of telling you I declined. I know what I am doing. UnderConstruction means something to some editors. You may wish to review the template. --Morenooso (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you honestly believe it isn't deeply confusing and annoying to decline a speedy nomination for no given reason? And telling me that you've declined a nomination is completely worthless if you don't tell me why. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're annoying me by pulling a WP:OWN about the declination. Get over it. See the template. --Morenooso (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with ownership of articles; I simply wanted to know why you declined the nomination (which I've now found out). It's just a friendly suggestion; it'd be more helpful if you actually told people in future rather than leading them on a treasure hunt to find out. Ironholds (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed your speedy tag at Polaris Document Master, by the way; A7 does not cover products. Ironholds (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And Gimjang; A7 is not a catch-all. Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. Nice retaliation. --Morenooso (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not retaliation. It is not a catch-all, and does not cover products; "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". See if you can spot "product" there. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The etc. is the catch all as pointed out to me by an admin. I suggest you revert. You have 12 hours.--Morenooso (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Etc refers to "other types of organisation", I think that's fairly clear. "an organisation, such as [example 1] [example 2] etc" - etc = "these examples do not cover every type of appropriate organisation for tagging". Please do not threaten me. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User followed my contribs in declining Speedy Delete tags
Please see thisdiff.--Morenooso (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, that's rather pathetic. WP:STALK says "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". Now, clearly that isn't my intent; my intent was instead to correct errors. Indeed, the guideline then states that "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." - which is exactly what I was doing. I'd give up now before you make yourself look stupid. Ironholds (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably missed in all my contribs all the red wikilinks due to my SD nominations. I would suggest you see WP:DUCK. --Morenooso (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you've got a crap record, I was just informing you that there were errors in the hope that you'd correct them. I do not see how WP:DUCK applies in this situation, and furthermore your implicit threats are quite frankly ludicrous. You're saying if I don't restore a pair of patently incorrect speedy deletion tags in 11 hours you'll.. what? Go to your room and refuse to come down for dinner? Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nos vamos a ver. --Morenooso (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I call your bluff, then. If you want to do something, do something; hell, post it at AN/I! It would be nice to have multiple other users tell you you're acting like a five-year-old. I'd hate to limit your knocking down a notch to simply me and let others miss out on the fun. Ironholds (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.50.130 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing much. Yourself? Hope you've changed your ways. --Morenooso (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations?
The material is already removed by many others as a bad input which does not pass scrutiny of the academic verifications of the claims and data used. Please, avoid posting warning about things you are obviously not familiar with.--71.191.25.221 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of the subject. And, you deleted cited material which merits a warning. --Morenooso (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wipe your nose, please.--71.191.25.221 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the current editor at bat got reverted in thisDIFF which kind of proves I know this article and its players. --Morenooso (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases page
Hi, could we discuss here? I am editing the page when I received a message from you. I've merely re-organized the content. Did not introduce new information on the whole. [User:Joo|Joo]] (talk) 17 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
 * You didn't receive a message from me on your talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to log in just now. Did you send a message to 219.74.34.139? [User:Joo|Joo]] (talk) 17 April 2010

By the way, upon re-checking, I did add this set of facts to the statement " In other words, the US National Review Board now requires dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[90]":

In 2002, June, the USCCB established the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People", a comprehensive set of procedures for addressing allegations of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy. The Charter also includes guidelines for reconciliation, healing, accountability, and prevention of future acts of abuse.[5]
 * The Charter directs action in the following matters:
 * Creating a safe environment for children and young people;
 * Healing and reconciliation of victims and survivors;
 * Making prompt and effective response to allegations;
 * Cooperating with civil authorities;
 * Disciplining offenders;
 * Providing for means of accountability for the future to ensure the problem continues to be effectively dealt with through a national Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection and a National Review Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood that previously but you are deleting cited material and inserting commentary by summarizing non-cited material. --Morenooso (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give me one specific example of a missing/changed reference or cited text. I believe I have retained all text and references. Had been counter-checking the new with the old while editing. joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I see that you have reverted the edit. I repeat: The contents have not been changed on the whole. Why do you have to kill the elephant to take out a fly? joo (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You killed the elephant first to insert your fly which from my perspective as Page Patroller is the elephant in the room. --Morenooso (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please give me one specific example. Where's the fly? I'm still wondering. joo (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ash Thursday
I believe that the article that ash thursday redirects to fails to mention this day. This is not an article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content. This day is significant for reasons as stated in the article and should be on wikipedia. If there is any further comments or content you want add please ask me and I will be happy to add these to the article. Please reinstate this article with immediate effect.

Rh205 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Denied. But, you can resubmit in triplicate. Try the admin. --Morenooso (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Docuganda
Docuganda - my take? I gotta stop drinking cheap gin before lunch. Then, there's Ash Thursday. Wow, Timothy Leary has nothing on me today. --Morenooso (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ash Thursday coulda gone G10, but the redirect works. I was gonna delete Docuganda, but then there were G-hits. Maybe a redirect to Documentary? As for me, I'm thinking of having a beer before I edit. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  23:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear, I saw Docu whatever deleted; rebooted; it's back and then your comments. It's like I'm sitting at a Rolling Stone's concert sucking in dry weed air. --Morenooso (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I saw it had hits but they did not seem substantial to me. I *hate* that neologisms are not CSD material. I re-read the applicable paragraph and Speedy Delete criteria talkpage. I wonder if it's too early for a qualude? --Morenooso (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 deleted it, then had second thoughts. PROD is probably best for know. Maybe I'll redirect before the PROD expires. OR not. Dloh cierekim  23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I caught all the action when I watched the replay in slo mo. Still feel like I'm on a bad trip. Maybe I ought to sit in my corner and color quietly. --Morenooso (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, I got it!!! --Morenooso (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Civilty is mandatory
You are far from being an expert in the Catholic Church sexual abuses. Also, playing role of a self promoted authority here is an act of incivilty. Please, avoid it!--71.191.26.127 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem pretty smug with your pronouncement here on my talkpage. Wikipedia is not a battleground and and not the news. Unfortunately that article and its talkpage have become both. --Morenooso (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Julieta Venegas
Could you comment on the discussion on her talk page. It's in regards to a deletion that I made that you restored. Fuddle (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Please see thisdiff. I have more than 1600 pages under Watch and sometimes conversations like this slip by me. On the Venegas article, I have followed her career closely and like the majority of pages I keep under Watch, I try to keep current on her accomplishments and who is editting her article. This helps me as a Page Patroller. --Morenooso (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think People from Chula Vista can be deleted, too.  AFAIK she's never lived in the US (and there's nothing in the article to back it up).Fuddle (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't get it. Is she from Chula Vista or not?  I'm not a wikipedian and I don't have time read pages and pages of rules for site that claims to have not rules.  There's nothing in the article to support her being in that category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuddle (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what in contention. Supposedly she is or has lived extensively in that area. Chula Vista, CA is on the southern edge of San Diego and fairly close to Tijuana. Some of the editors have fought where she was actually born and where she is from. There is conflicting informational sources and nothing really WP:RS. I have my own feeling about all of this but it basically becomes WP:OR which is what some editors like me have tried to prevent from creeping into her article. That is the reason for the Refimprove tag and why all additions/deletions need to be sourced otherwise they are subject to reversal. Her article has cooled off but her recent pregnancy should soon add fire to it. --Morenooso (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying she wasn't born in Chula Vista. I'm asking why unsourced material is allowed in the article.  If someone wrote "and she was born in Chula Vista" it would be deleted or marked as "needs citation."  Why is that different for categories?  If that category weren't there, there would be no justification to add it.  When you edit this page it warns "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately"

And why Chula Vista? Why not San Diego or Long Beach (IMDb)? And in any case even if she were born in the US, she's not "from" there. She's from Tijuana, regardless of whether she spent 3 days in a hospital in CA or even a few years at school there. Fuddle (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell and whenever I see unsourced info added, it is reverted - that's why the Refimprove tag was added. You have to realize that many articles receive unsourced additions or deletions. This one was getting undue attention and the Refimprove tag is a viable means of reverting unsourced additions as per its admonition. An editor, who does not review that tag and her talkpage (I'm not singling out you but all visiting editors in general), must source additions/deletions or they will be reverted. The categories fall in the same range as they refer to the contested material of where she was born or raised. There are three locations mentioned: Long Beach, Chula Vista and Tijuana. For someone to now add or delete a category will require a citation with discussion for consensus on the talkpage. However, I can almost guarantee you that a new discussion with citation will cause another dust up. --Morenooso (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems odd that there are two levels of unverified info. A few minutes ago a paragraph was removed from her page even though it was somewhat accurate.  Yet the Chula Vista category remains because someone contested it.  Perhaps it would be helpful if the birthplace controversy were put in the article in addition to the talk page: "Various sources give her birthplace as Tijuana, Long Beach and Chula Vista[citation needed]".  Then at least it would be clear to the casual reader why she has two "from" categories.


 * I also think the concept of "from" needs to be explained. In my mind a person can only be "from" one place.


 * BTW, I'm enjoying this discussion.Fuddle (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have about 1600 articles under Watch. While I try to keep up with all of them, I physically cannot be everywhere. Like many articles I watch, I depend upon my fellow editors to also watch over her and other articles. Now, that being said yesterday was a day of bot activity that masked alot of my Watched articles plus I have one that dominates almost a good quarter of my screen. I will review as best I can what the 200 edits are to my Watchlist but again am human and miss stuff. Then too I am now consumed by working on something for a friend.
 * Contentious edits to Venegas' article have died down but occasionally stuff will creep into it. Like many other articles under Watch, I will review it when I next see it come up on my Watchlist. As for what was removed yesterday that is easy. It is unsourced gossip that appears in a WP:BLP. If you look at a living person's article talkpage, you will see that it references WP:BLP's main tenet that contentious material if unsourced or poorly sourced shall be removed immediately. In fact, I have seen accurately sourced material removed from articles for the same reason because Wikipedia is sensitive to [[WP:LIBEL. That's not to say WP:OTHERSTUFF is present because it is. However, good editors will know their articles and should keep them free from libelous material. The way one admin put it is if this was an article about your mom or dad, would want what is being posted to the article to stand is it was potentially libelous? I don't think so. ..
 * In essence, now that I have reviewed the deletion, I have to let it stand because it is unsourced and potentially libelous which sets off WP:BLP's mandate - removal. --Morenooso (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only a number
--Morenooso (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)==Numbers== Just a wee amount. One should be accurate, and all.

Tell 'er I said hello. ;-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sssh, sssh. I'm trying to look innocent. --Morenooso (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be difficult - I do it all the time. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No kidding, I have the kind of face most people feel belongs in a post office on a wanted poster. I walk last week into a building and a friend says, "Assume the postion" meaning get ready to be frisked as by a police officer. I naturally go along with the request and another friend says, "Not good, he knows the position." Oh well. . . --Morenooso (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have interesting friends. My problem is that I look ten years younger than I actually am.  When I was a senior in college I was mistaken for a junior.  In high school.  *sigh* -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to get carded for liquor purchases up to 17 years ago. I won't tell you how old I am. And yes, I have some eccletic friends. Oops, here comes what's her name. Gotta scoot. . .--Morenooso (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what kind of badge you get for 7,000 plus edits and being to walk/chew gum at the same time? --Morenooso (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something with a picture of Gerald Ford, presumably. Sorry.
 * I was thinking of another Jerry: Jerry Lewis or what the dummy for Knucklehead Smith? --Morenooso (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy's Jerry Mahoney. --Morenooso (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, creepy. His eyes bore into my skull like woodworm. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who, Jerry Lewis? Maybe I should go with Dean Martin. I could go for some cheap gin right now. --Morenooso (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Howsabout Sammy Davis, Jr. instead? He's my favorite. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Joey Bishop of the Ratpack is probably more my style. I'd like to think of myself as old Blue-eyes but I'm helpless goofy sidekick no one takes seriously. BTW, which guy scared you? --Morenooso (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerry Mahoney. It's the eyes.  And that grin. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, they had him in France? I used to love him and Knucklehead because they came on after school ended. --Morenooso (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Er...I don't know. I'm not in France. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought we settled this on your talkpage. The Portugeese, Italian French. Hmmm, now I'm getting hungry. I wonder's what's for lunch. . . Where do you live? --Morenooso (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the Washington Monument from my commute. You? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've played on the course that has a excellent view of said monument and the mall. Me, I can see the original home location. There's neat bar next store that serves up Jose Cuervo like it's water!!!
 * I used to live a little ways to the west of there. Long, long ago, though. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this guy lived west of there? Did you live with Charley the Tuna too? --Morenooso (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope - I lived with the government. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven some pix out that way. I will have to look them up. Too much cheap gin but at least Tangueray goes down smooth. I knew some crows who liked that institute. They speak the wizard of the air. --Morenooso (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know any of them. But I may have known some spooks in my day...or I may have not.  Who knows? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman Francis McFarland
A retired Roman Catholic bishop from California&Nevada Norman Francis McFarland died recently. An Article needs to be started. Since you are from the West Coast, you might be interested in doing it. I should start the article but I am going through a mild case of burnt out right reverting too many vandalisms-Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will consider it in the days ahead. I have an iron or two in the fire and one article I really want to create before May rolls around as it affects our region fairly heavily. Thanks for letting me know and I will put it on my hot list.
 * Guess what? He has an article on the German Wikipedia:


 * Norman Francis McFarland
 * I wonder how we can port that over. --Morenooso (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Wonder why there was an article in German first?  Not the first time I've found an odd American subject in the German Wikipedia: he was in German and Dutch both. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I redirected the article to his full name: Norman Francis McFarland. Also I knew the foreign language Wikipedias would do articles of the various Roman Catholic bishops. I wish the articles would be translated into English-it would make things easier. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good; no problems that I can imagine. I don't see anything that needs to be changed, so I've done nothing.  Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is very basic at the present time. I debated waiting on someone to help me port it over but decided to go from scratch using a "cookie-cutter mold" patterned off a RFD stub article I am familiar with. After I have lunch, I will try to flesh it out. It would be nice to know how to port an article. I did some looking on the help pages but could not find any help after I posted the helpme template. Now, I just to learn how to make redirects. With the name change, a couple of articles probably have broken wikilinks. --Morenooso (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry; I never work with biographies, so I've not the slightest clue what to do with the box. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I know someone who might know how to change the color. I will post a note when I do my next save. --Morenooso (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)