User talk:Morphdog/Archive 1

DE NIRO PAGE
The movie never happened,so why put it in the main page? It makes no sense.

What? Morphdog (t - c) 19:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of United States of America in the Personality Cults page
A "Talk" page should be where we discuss the possibility of including a topic BEFORE we start the extensive research providing citations. If there's enough positive responses only then should we put in the hours or days for collecting and properly formatting supportive citations. Wikipedia appears to be much changed in the past few years and not for the better. - a devout user from the last century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.167.236 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My revert was a mistake, and I've reverted it. Thank you! Morphdog (t - c) 04:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

James Pickles
What makes you think this English lawyer and judge was a barista and not a barrister? Be more careful, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.74.48.61 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate pending changes reviewing
Hi. Please take care when reviewing pending changes, the article Bobby Sands that you recently reviewed an edit on was protected for the very reason that edits such as these be filtered out. It only takes a quick glance at the topic to realise that the edit is non-constructive. It is important that content on such pages is kept accurate and sourced, otherwise the WP:PCPP and the 'reviewer' user right wouldn't exist. Please be more careful. Regards, — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I get that information in articles needs to be accurate, but there's only so much I can do to ensure that, as the point is to get rid of "obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection". Since WP:AGF and the fact that "dementia" could have been the possible cause of death, and the person who made that edit was just trying to revert vandalism, I decided to accept. I hope you understand why I accepted it. But yes, you are correct. Morphdog (t - c) 17:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be firm about this, but dementia wasn't just added as a plausible cause of death; much of the article's references, and a link to the 1981 hunger strike was changed to 'dementia'. From the obvious redlink and consequently malformed references I think that this case is more likely test/vandalism than good faith. You say that there is only so much you can do, however it really does not take very much effort to spot this. You can't always assume good faith, especially when it concerns someone's lifelong work and cause of death. I understand your point about pending changes reviewing not being about ensuring correctness, but obvious problems such as the one I quoted should be rejected, not accepted to be left for others to revert. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Further to this, your reasoning of "the person who made that edit was just trying to revert vandalism" cannot be true a quick glance at the page history confirms this. Secondly, your other reasoning of ""dementia" could have been the possible cause of death" is also flawed since the page link modified in the diff you accepted (1981 hunger strike) clearly states the subject having died as a result of a hunger strike, not dementia. It is worrying that you are justifying these with WP:AGF, looking back at your talk page it seems this isn't the first time this is happening (example); quite a few of your previous reverts have been hastily performed with a lack of attention towards the topic the page concerns. Again, I don't mean to be unpleasant or unnecessarily firm about this, so please don't take it that way! I just mean to bring it to your attention that it is better to clear the pending changes backlog slowly but accurately, rather than quickly and perhaps inaccurately. Best, — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 19:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Columbia Records vandalism?
How were my edits to Columbia Records vandalism? Please don't jump to conclusions. I see you've been editing as far back as August 2015 (over 1 year, 7 months), so you might be a little new to Wikipedia, but you should know that my edit wasn't vandalism, if anything, it was done in good faith. I was just adding in the original founding name to the article is all. --173.73.227.128 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I went ahead and deleted the UW notice, however you do have quite the history. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused, seriously. Morphdog (t - c) 18:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's OK, we all make mistakes, but thank you for understanding. --173.73.227.128 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Marquis de Sade
I would like it to be made clear why you have said that my edit to the Marquis de Sade's article was vandalism or unproductive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamamall (talk • contribs) 00:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are going to claim that someone is a serial rapist, please provide proper citations of this. Morphdog (t - c) 00:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Morphdog, I coincidentally saw the de Sade edits, but I actually came here to regarding your revert on Glossary_of_anime_and_manga. Please try to be more careful with reverts and edit summaries. The de Sade edit clearly wasn't "test/vandalism". The revert summary should have said that kind of content needs firm sourcing. On your Glossary revert, you reverted a pair of edits. The first one was indeed a test or mistake, but the second edit was the person correcting it and adding good faith content. After the second edit happened, there was no "test/vandalism" to revert. The formatting and presentation of the new content was poor (which is expected of a new contributor), but I was able to upgrade it into a good glossary entry. It shouldn't have been reverted at all. If you're doing quick test/vandalism cleanup, poor quality edits should be left in place for improvement.
 * This is just a friendly reminder that we all need to put a bit more effort into welcoming and helping newbies grow into experienced editors. Cleaning up test-junk and vandalism is important, but aggressive reverting with poor edit summaries can make Wikipedia look like a confusing and hostile place for new users. Bringing on board even one active and productive new user has a "value" equal to all of the edits they will ever make. Alsee (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

xD
MY THING WAS A SUMMARY AND APPARENTLY IT WASNT A SUMMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exexexe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Direct debit
Hi, I read a few articles on BBC News about CPAs and that's why I added that line to the Direct Debit page on wiki: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39167860

Please let me know what your specific objection to the addition of that sentence was and I am more than happy to discuss it :) Cheers! TernGurad (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the content you put it in, it's just that you didn't put in an inline citation for it. Morphdog (t - c) 23:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism
Thank you for your comment. I added some references, and I somewhat stick on this, as in debate with people under 20, it is rather apparent they are totally unaware that terrorism actually meant something rather more specific 30 years ago, and are convinced I am a moron because the wikipedia doesnt say so. If you have any suggestions to improvement I welcome the contribution: "The modern definition of terrorism is an expansion of its original narrower specfic focus on the intentional killing of civilians by militant insurrectionists with bombs and suicide attack, most notably by the Irish Republican Army and Palestine Liberation Organization. Since President George W. Bush declared the War on Terror, Terrorism has expanded to mean..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeyer444 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see that you added in your changes. For now I'll just leave it to another PCR or someone who is more active on the article, since generally the leads of article starts with "[Subject Name] is...." and I am not sure if your edit has consensus. Even then, I just so happen to be a recent changes patroller who saw your change and can also accept/revert pending changes. Morphdog (t - c) 18:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I tired moving the edit, and I received a message that I am engaged in edit war. As the other person who is removing the edits left me no message, I don't have any way to make my case to anyone else.
 * Try discussing it on the Talk Page of the article. Morphdog (t - c) 13:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert on Terrorism
Hi and thanks for your message on my talk page. I reverted a few of the blocked editors contributions including this one, sorry for not including an edit summary. Apart from the spelling errors it contained, the paragraph (which was pretty much word for word what the editor had included in a number of articles) didn't fit the context. The topic of that section is about government responses to the whole issue of terrorism, whereas he was wanting to include one specific example of one country responding to another country about a particular act that may or may not be terrorism depending on who you ask. So it didn't fit and without much wider context and explanation was WP:UNDUE. Hope that makes sense, cheers Melcous (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

 * My first barnstar! Thank you so much. Morphdog (t - c) 13:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

16:19:36, 31 March 2017 review of submission by Msboogaloo
your assessment with this article is incorrect and meets the guidelines issued by wiki. Michael Christianson is a a notable American football coach for over 25 years and is also a superbowl winning coach. Coached many high caliber athletes. You clearly spent no time whatsoever reviewing the references as this page is notably stronger than many others in this field. Please provide feedback to correct any issues to fix for submission (which other have done) but don't troll and delete for the wrong reasons.
 * Thanks for your feedback. The reason I declined your article was due to this deletion discussion in which the consensus was to delete. If you would like to challenge that decision, please do so at Deletion review. If you have any other questions. please let me know. Morphdog (t - c) 16:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted your decline as the AfD was very clearly not about the same person - it was about a baseball player, who was in high school in 2005. The draft subject was born in 1965 and even if it were the same person, a single AfD from 12 years ago isn't really consensus any longer, especially given how much can be achieved in that time frame. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * if you would the like to accept the article please do so. It's just that I don't have the confidence to re-create a deleted article as someone who is new to reviewing AfC and although I know Wikipedia's policies well, it's just going out of my comfort zone, but if you want to accept the article that's fine. Morphdog (t - c) 23:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your acceptance of an article
I've asked for your comment here. Thanks! CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Test
Just a test to make sure my new sig is working okay. Morphdog fire 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Establishing Consensus
Hello, I was hoping you could help me 'establish a consensus for this alteration". Could you tell me the steps that I need to take? I read the consensus link. There has been a lot of editing and discussion already. I'm unclear how to proceed. Thank you so much. Msturm 8 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually really simple. Just propose your idea on the talk page, and ask for input on the idea. If enough people like the idea (support, oppose, neutral), enough to be considered consensus, then make an edit request. Morphdog (t - c) 23:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will give this a-go. Msturm 8 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So I just did. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or feedback so that I can be as clear as possible. Thank you for your help. Msturm 8 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello MorphDog, does the establishing of consensus take a long time in general? There has been no further comment or feedback since I followed your feedback. I am wondering if there is something else I need to be doing or it's just a matter of time. Thanks so much. Msturm 8 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It can take a while. However, if there are no objects to it then go ahead and add it. Morphdog (t - c) 18:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do that soon. I appreciate your help. Msturm 8 (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't do it. It says this: "This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it." Are you someone who is able to add it? Msturm 8 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can, but you are going to have to prove to me that you settled your dispute with User:PacificOcean so that he is fine with you making that edit and that this edit will improve Wikipedia before I get involved. Morphdog (t - c) 12:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I and Pacific Ocean will ever have a settled the dispute as she is working directly with Laura Albert/JT LeRoy on the page, the person who committed the fraud and has kept the page biased. The point really is that at the moment the last paragraph is not neutral. The page has been re-worked and honestly I don't care how much information is on it, as long as it is neutral and it is not at the moment. It shouldn't talk about people who are outside of the experience being 'inspired' or 'admiring' of a social phenomenon without ANY mention of the people who feel damaged by the event-- which there are many. If you read the quotes, or do a simple google search, you will see that JT LeRoy is often considered a hoax, a malicious one and not 'an inspiration.' The last paragraph leaves it that way. I don't care if those inspiration lines are deleted or you added the quotes that I listed. The point is that I'm trying to make is the page should be neutral and it is not. Thanks for your time and help! Msturm 8 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history of the page, you will see that there are years and years of controversies and problems. I just jumped in fairly recently because I was aware the Wikipedia page was ridiculously biased and inaccurate. I didn't have the time to take it on, but had made note of it. I can see why I didn't bother in the past as it is an almost ridiculously complex endeavor to have the page accurately reflect the truth. I have no expectations that it will be go deep, but it shouldn't be blatantly wrong/biased/inaccurate where the person who perpetuated a fraud gets the final points on the topic on a topic that was damaging. Read the quotes I have included. They are just a few of many, many I could link to. They are from the New York Times. The Guardian. The San Francisco Chronicle. Msturm 8 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. I can't believe it but Pacific Ocean agreed to the deletions that I was suggesting. Maybe you would feel making them now? Thanks.Msturm 8 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Notability editnotice
Template:Notability editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adobe Blogs
Hi there. Adobe Blogs may be a blog, but it is a curated blog by a major company involved in web publishing. It's not "just a blog". My citation should be brought back. If it's not good enough, why don't you do the work and find a better source that does meet with your expectations, instead of deleting a contribution?

And secondly, even the most trivial 5 second Google search, or basic familiarity with the topic, or even the content of the rest of the paragraph, would be enough for you to see that my contribution was correct none the less. So if you don't like the source, just slam a "citation needed" on there instead of rudely deleting everything. 95.97.234.31 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted my revert. Thanks for pointing that out. Morphdog what did I do now? 15:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Morphdog. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMorphdog enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

New Time Network
News Time Network — Preceding unsigned comment added by News Time Network (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

How is one supposed to cite a source for a personal experience?
I can tell you for a fact it still happens because my account was just deleed over it. Am I supposed to cite myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.163.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your question! Unfortunately, the answer is neither. Wikipedia does not accept original research. If you have a source that is not personal experience, feel free to add it though. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know, and remember to sign messages on your talk page using four tildes (~ key). Morphdog what did I do now? 19:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

GITS First Assault revert
Hi,

You reverted the changes I made to the Ghost in the Shell First Assault wiki page for "removing content". I have since rolled back you roll back for the following reasons.

Nothing was removed, instead it was moved to a new subheading titled "closure". The game has two main versions, the Japanese version and the worldwide version. The article stated that the Japanese version had been closed, so with recent events (the worldwide version also being closed) a new sub heading was made called "closure" as the full game has been confirmed and scheduled for sunset (closure).

Other content that was added that got removed in you roll back was the reception of the players. This is important and needs to be in the article as the player reception (especially the decling player base) was the main reason why the game has been scheduled for closure.

Your use of rollback was also unjustified. When you were given rollback one of the conditions of using it were "Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only", If you had checked the previous article compared to the new one you would have seen that this wasn't vandalism.
 * I assume you are talking about this edit? If so, there's no way to tell why you removed certain sections, since the edit summary was blank, so I reverted your edit. Also, while you are correct that I technically used the rollback function to revert your edit, I did leave a summary explaining why I made the revert as well as a warning template on your talk page, so there shouldn't be any ambiguity as to why I made the edit I made. Morphdog what did I do now? 01:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Golden Retriever
There's a clue in the name of the breed - Golden Retrievers all have a golden coat. Light-to-medium qualifies that. Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was that while golden is a possible color a golden retriever can be cream, light golden, or dark golden. Here's a picture to help illustrate what I'm talking about here. Of course, this applies to other breeds too, not just Golden Retrievers. Also, going through c:Category:Golden Retriever does a good job of showing this too, with some dogs being very dark gold with others being essentially white. Morphdog what did I do now? 01:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What they can't be is anything but golden. "Golden Retriever with a golden coat" is tautologous. Ian Dalziel (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not tautologous when you consider that the "Golden" in Golden Retriever could refer to a cream colored golden, or a very dark colored golden, whereas "golden" in the context of specifically a Golden Retriever's color refers to that specific color shown in the picture. Morphdog what did I do now? 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a source for that usage? Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * specifically the section mentioning the different colors. Morphdog what did I do now? 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but all three are described as "golden"! Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the caption to use better wording to explain what I mean. See here.
 * That's much better, I think. Shouldn't it be "within breeds" rather than "between breeds", though? Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Casper de portal
Hi Morphdog,

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is where my information comes from of gaspers DOB

Regards, Flicklewis FlickLewis (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hammerhead shark
76.189.141.88 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC) The reason I reverted you is because that's better discussed on the talk page of the article, not as a comment in the article. Morphdog talk 00:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)