User talk:Mosmof/Archive 10

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590075412 your edit] to Jermain Defoe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TFC TRANSFER|publisher=TSN|first=Luke|last=Wileman|date=8 January 2014} The transfer also includes an agreement between Tottenham and Toronto's owners, [[Maple Leaf

Juan Mata
Please stop editing the Juan Mata page, you're adding information and not providing a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan1312 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure The Guardian is a reliable source. I'd urge you to double-check my edit. Mosmof (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I agree this should not be added at this time. Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL we should not be including speculative information regardless of the source.  This is common Wikipedia practice in sport related articles.  We normally don't post contracts and team moves until it is officially announced. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But the provisional fee is not a speculative information. Sure, the transfer hasn't happened, but the provisional pee has been agreed to, in past tense. Whether or not the transfer ultimately happens, the fee agreement is real and seems noteworthy. Mosmof (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Mosmof, just dropped in to clarify why I made the changes I did after my inadequate explanation on my edit. Whilst I absolutely agree that a fee being agreed is noteworthy the sources of the news are also important. Ultimately, all sources from news websites like the BBC and The Telegraph must be treated as rumours and as such aren't valid. We need to wait until either of the clubs make an official announcement before we can add stuff, imagine if we took every 'agreed deal' from one of these websites, Wikipedia would be clogged up with incorrect information. If Moyes, Mourinho or someone else of a similar standing makes a statement on the issue then we can use that information in the article, but as it stands, it's all just speculation and as such, it shouldn't be included. Hope that all makes sense, kindest regards Mythical Curse (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Hey again, Mourinho's confirmed that a deal has been agreed which basically verifies the information you posted before, so you can re add. It's not essential that it's added now but it should be added at some point, whilst I don't like adding rumours to Wikipedia, I also don't like information being missed out. There's loads of cases on wiki like Willian's transfer (where there's no mention of Tottenham) where verified information wasn't added, creating an imperfect picture of what happened. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Yep, I've added a quote from Mourinho. Mosmof (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What made you to delete the image File:Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Kindly let me know the reason behind removing the File:Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg as well as give me the source(s) which indicate that the file has the copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the image, but I did tag the image as an obvious copyright violation because it was from Getty Images, I believe. Why don't you ask User:January who actually deleted the image. Also, it's poor form to use the level 3 template for someone who isn't actually being disruptive. Mosmof (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging proposal Discarded
Hi! Mosmof, it is not possible to merge both the articles together. Well, I have left a a message at Talk:Transparency International Please review and response for the same. I've also removed the merger tag that you have placed in the articles Transparency International and Transparency International India. Iraag (talk)

Thanks for advice
Although, I am not going to remove the templates that you placed under the article Transparency International India for merging it with Transparency International. But for your knowledge let me inform you that I've started the articles Transparency International India and it is advised you to see the history of the article/ talk before leaving an message. Iraag (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Creating a article with title "Isrg Rajan"
Hi! Mosmof, Through this I would like to request you for creating an article entitled Isrg Rajan.

Thank you!

Iraag (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596919461 your edit] to 5W Public Relations may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to Transfermarkt
The Transfermarkt website contains user-generated contributions and as such is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. The template was deleted last year due to this reason. See also here. Please do not add Transfermarkt links back into Wikipedia articles. Thanks, C679 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I'm actually not sure how that happened - I was updating an infobox image and I apparently included the link by mistake, though I have no earthly idea how. Mosmof (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MLS expansion
Why would you reverse my additions to this thread. Everything I added is know facts. Because you don't want to accept this is no reason to reverse the edit. Please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained why I reverted it. The column (and not a "report", as you say in your edit) says "MLS Commissioner Don Garber is giving the impression that the two cities are essentially on equal footing in terms of their chances of securing a big-league soccer team", which is different from "Garber considers Austin to be equal with San Antonio". The former is one columnist's opinion of the vibe Garber is sending out, which necessarily isn't an indication of what he's actually thinking. Mosmof (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wilpons
What is your sourcing for the Wilpons being "integral" to expansion in New York beyond Garber having acknowledged he'd had discussions with them? Also, the Cosmos section is appropriate as it stands given the fact that it's both a failed/stalled bid and a potentiality (at minimum one of more substantive value than at least three other markets listed -- including those not cited by Garber but listed anyway -- given the Cosmos bid's level of investment and attempts at a stadium). -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source for it, but they were certainly in the picture as much as the Cosmos were. Given that MLS requires a substantial expansion fee and a deep-pocketed ownership group, it stands to reason that the Wilpons were the money guys. Plus, the Cosmos aren't actively pursuing expansion, so anything happening now is unrelated to the main topic. Mosmof (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're being anecdotal, I've been following this since 2009 and the Wilpons were never involved beyond discussions about Queens property and/or their own potential bid, and certainly not with the Cosmos according to anything that can be properly attributed. As for the future of the Cosmos themselves, their owners have stated that they feel the market can "support four teams," seeks to be "at the top of US soccer," and is seeking an MLS-sized stadium, just a couple of years after stating it was their "unequivocal goal" to be in MLS. And, to be anecdotal again, national and NY-area soccer writers have openly speculated that remaining in the second division as the pyramid is currently constituted is not their "endgame." See no need to change the passage. -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602446420 your edit] to DeSean Jackson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redskins]] to a reported three-year, $24 million contract with $16 million guaranteed. {cite news|url=http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/02/desean-jackson-redskins-agree-on-reported-3-

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Carribbean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomás Regalado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami Soccer Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomás Regalado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Wilhoite 2010?
Hey there, thanks for looking out for the facticity of 2010 NFL Draft... Michael Wilhoite's wiki page says 2010 draft...  Can you put him as a notable for 2010 or 2011? He certainly belongs as a notable undrafted. Cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right - I'll revert my edit and fix the name. Mosmof (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612498114 your edit] to Alonzo Mourning may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In the lockout-shortened 1998-1999 season, but Mourning averaged 20.1 points, a career high 11 rebounds and a career high 3.

Ronn Torossian
A user named Huon thinks it needs extensive changes to meet Wikipedia's policies. We have been arguing very pointlessly on the talk page, and I think some other opinions might level both his and my heads. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What a whacky coincidence
You're on my case in four different places right now. Like to watch? Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help to WP:AGF. You're showing a demonstrate misunderstanding of WP:NFCC, so of course I'm going to check your edits on images. Mosmof (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Horse head mask photo
Hi, I don't understand what is meant by "the original Tweet". There were photographers all around Obama at the time taking much the same photograph. Why is this tweet the "original" and not the Getty image previously used in the article? Why did you delete the Denver Post article that showed the Getty image plus had additional content? Thanks. -- Green  C  16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there were two sources for the photos that went viral, the previous photo (AP and AFP had essentially the same shot) and the tweet from the NY Times writer. Both photos went viral and for our purposes, we just need to show that a photo went viral, so I just focused on the one that wasn't an agency photo. I can see how the "original" can be confusing, and I'll restore the other cite. 19:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)