User talk:Mosmof/Archive 6

Admin?
I think the Joe Johnson page needs to be semi-protected. Thanks! --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Assist?
Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hangon to image deletion of Kalimati station.jpg
kindly see the talk page of File:Kalimati station.jpg to see why it should not be deleted.--''  devx 101  [TALK]  18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Merge suggestion for Sports jinxes and Sports-related curses
It seemed to me to be a lot of OR there as well, but I thought that if any of the "jinxes" were salvageable, it would be best to at least get them on the proper page. The author ought to have added them to sports-related curses instead of creating a new page; I would guess that s/he simply didn't know about the existing article. I suggested the merge as part of routine categorization maintenence. If you feel that most of the content does not belong, as an editor with an interest in the article you're probably justified in making that decision. Fishal (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports jinxes
I saw that you had PROD'ed the above. Rather than delete it I redirected it to Sports-related curses. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. i think that's a sensible option. --Mosmof (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

5W Public Relations
Please assist - Theres been quiet here... and plenty of back and forth dont we agree on that ? Thanks much. Protect ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:59, August 5, 2010
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. --Mosmof (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter error
Sorry, please try it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, working now. --Mosmof (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard England 2-1 Hungary section in International career
Hello mate,

There are three reasons why you shouldn't have deleted the section on Steven Gerrard I added yesterday:

1. It isn't my fault if there isn't enough detail about the rest of his international career and thats probably because people didn't used to use wikipedia so much in the past, but don't you think people will want to read about this? I think a player of Steven Gerrard's calibre deserves a little more description than he currently has.

2. You say that I use too much 'flowery' language but I'm just trying to to portray a vivid image of the goals in the mind of the viewer! If I'd just said '20-yard strike' instead of 'sublime 20-yard half-volley' it would not have had the same effect. The usage of words such as 'sublime' and 'danced' adds flavour to the text and I personally don't think it should be discouraged.

3. You call it an 'inconsequential match' but firstly the player in question captained the team, scored two brilliant goals, played in his favoured position under Capello for the first time and it was the first match England had played since the 2010 World Cup and therefore the 2-1 win was a much needed morale-booster and restored some fans faith in English football. How is this inconsequential? It was an important match for both the player and the team as a whole and I feel that it deserves a mention.

And one last proposition for you if you still don't see where I'm coming from: Would you mind not deleting it if I improved the rest of the 'International career' section to match the level of description in my segment? I could include more detail about his international tournaments and perhaps the other significant goals he has scored for England in the past.

Thanks for reading and please consider my words carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksyonthemoon (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My Changes
Dear Mosmof: Please let me know what I can do to improve my changes to this article. Every time I make changes to improve the way the article sounds my changes keep getting reverted. Please advise what i can and cannot do. I would like to have something up that is allowed. Thank you. --Rosemarylora (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFG
Hi! Is this (and this) a case of WP:NFG? If not, then why? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering the above. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 18:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I'd responded to you, but it looks like my reply got lost in the shuffle somehow. Anyway, I think the use of the broken stick image is fine. WP:NFG covers image galleries, and since the broken stick screencap is used in context of the discussion of the broken stick feature, I think you're fine. Apologies for the belated response. Mosmof (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

William Gallas
Hi. I have reverted your edit to the William Gallas article. Other Spurs players' articles include the full name of the club and I don't see why Gallas should be any different. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I know we generally go for brevity in the infobox, but consistency is probably more important. Thanks for letting me know. Mosmof (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Image
Your recent edit to Leonardo González broke the infobox image. I don't know where the new image is located you're trying to use, so you'll need to fix it or I can revert it. --SkotyWATC 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis?
Regarding, I'm amazed that you're claiming this is synthesis. There are 3 sources cited, and one of them actually uses the word "iconic" in it. Please explain? On a side note, I think it's very underhanded of you to remove this sentence on the day that the image review hits 7 days and admins will try to make a decision on the picture. I'm not going to stoop to this level and revert it until I've given you 12 hours to explain how this is possibly synthesis. If you want to regain a shred of decency out of this, you can revert it yourself until we can discuss it. --SkotyWATC 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you're not really paraphrasing what the source actually says. You're making your own conclusion, that images from the match are "historic" or "iconic", because someone who's selling pictures online said that particular image was iconic. And I wish you'd have the decency to assume good faith, since that paragraph has jack all to do with the image in question (and I honestly didn't know we were hitting the 7-day milestone - I didn't realize it was such a big date). I nominated the image for failing WP:NFCC, and the paragraph doesn't add any critical commentary of the image. Hell, the image in question isn't even mentioned anywhere. Unless you're somehow trying to claim ALL images from the historic season are iconic, which seems a tad bit insane.
 * And "3 sources cited"? Really? You added an auction site for an autographed photo, another for an artist who's selling a montage of, in the artist's words, "iconic moments" (emphasis mine), and a photo gallery. Yes, the word "iconic" is used. You're absolutely correct about that. But nowhere in the three links is there a mention of iconic images. So your claim that the images are iconic are unsupported by any reliable, independent source.
 * Anyway, thanks for the chance to regain a shred of decency. That's extremely big of you. I'll sleep on it. --Mosmof (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, sorry for the "shred of decency" comment. I was beyond annoyed and didn't get calm before I posted that.  I made the mistake of expecting you to understand how I percieved your actions.  Clearly that's not possible.  Frankly I think you're way past good faith on this one, and much closer to my just calling a duck a duck.
 * Second, if I'm to summarize what you're saying above, it basically boils down to something along the lines of: "iconic moments" does not equal "iconic images". You're saying I can't make that conclusion.  Since all of the sources are talking about (or selling) artwork, I would have thought it was obvious we're talking about images, but you've got your technicality, so good for you.  As I said in the review discussion, I didn't like the sentence I added to the article much anyways.  It's unecessary because it points out the obvious.  However, as you seem determined to demonstrate, even obvious stuff like this can have chinks in their armor such that you can prove, or disproove, almost anything.
 * Therefore, I congratulate you on your "contribution" to the encyclopedia. --SkotyWATC 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that's unfair, because I've been trying to explain WP:NFCC, since you seem to be unfamiliar with image policies and the usual issues that come up in these deletion discussions, and you've only been combative (or at least passive aggressively combative) from the start, so I'm puzzled at what point it became clear that I'm this awful, awful person not deserving of the assumption of good faith.
 * Anyway, to address your points:
 * "iconic moments" does not equal "iconic images": Exactly. Many, many photos of iconic moments are not necessarily iconic, and conversely, many, many iconic photos are not necessarily of iconic moments. You simply can't extrapolate iconicness.
 *  You're saying I can't make that conclusion.: Again, yes. That's what WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH are about.
 * "Since all of the sources are talking about (or selling) artwork, I would have thought it was obvious we're talking about images'': Yes, I think? We are talking about images. We're just not talking about the image we're supposed to be talking about.
 * I know you've been reaching out to other editors, and that's great. But you need to stop taking this personally. Consensus changes all the time. Featured article reviews aren't infallible. Maintaining civility shouldn't be that hard. Mosmof (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * you need to stop taking this personally and Maintaining civility shouldn't be that hard - I'm really bummed I included that "shred of decency" comment here, because other than that, I think I've conducted myself in a pretty rational manner. I've tried to make a clear case and respond to rebuttles with a fact based approach.  I did more research when necessary and tried to provide many reasonable examples to back up the claims I was making.  I wonder if I hadn't included the "shred of decency" thing above if you would have had the same conclusion about my approach.  While I admit I am super frustrated with how the Wikipedia process seems to destroy article quality rather than encourage it in this case, I don't think I'm taking it personally.  That just seems like an easy way to dismiss some inconvenient truths I've pointed out.
 * Consensus changes all the time. - That's easy to say generally, but the difference between consensus among 4 editors on a file deletion page and an order of magnitude more editors on an FAC review is something that's completely overlooked in that statement. I don't expect you to understand that as you've never been involved in an FAC review yourself (you'll probably just think I'm taking this personally again here).  The problem I have with the file deletion process is the attitude of "anything nominated is a violation by default unless proven otherwise".  The nominators seem to take a lot of pride in that when objections are raised.  For most of the uncontested stuff that goes through there, this is a fine policy and makes cleanup of many parts of the encyclopedia very straight forward work.  However, I think when its used as a tool to destroy featured articles piece by piece, it misses the point.  --SkotyWATC 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you seemed really defensive from the start and you seemed to take the mere nomination of the image as an affront. I've been involved in WP:FFDs for some time now (you're free to look at my edits), and I can tell you that this particular deletion was pretty routine and uncontroversial. I think your perception that "anything nominated is a violation by default unless proven otherwise" is a case of sample bias - I wouldn't nominate an image without good reason and I doubt too many editors do (although the burden of proof falls more heavily towards keeping WP:NFC, with good reason). I looked at Featured article candidates/2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1, and it seems the image came up, but the discussion was never truly fleshed out. I get that it's frustrating and WP:NFCC can seem convoluted if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practice with non-free content. But you seem resistant to any sort of guidance on the issue, which I've found frustrating. --Mosmof (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a weak argument to now blame this on my not being familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices. WP:NFCC does not seem convoluted.  It's pretty clear cut.  Unfortunately, WP:NFCC#8 gets contentious because some editors see an image and think "this isn't a significant image for me" or "this image didn't help me understand the article" and therefore think this applies to everyone.  Unfortunately, it's hard to object rationally to such an irrational conclusion.  I guess another point that frustrated me was that I also pointed out a lot of related Wikipedia policies and practices and they were all but ignored (especially by you).  Is that also routine?  I've already reviewed your edit history which how I know that you've never been involved in a featured article review.  What a shame.  I encourage you to try it some time.  I assure you it's a lot harder than WP:FFD, but the productive value to the project is far greater.  I admit this is my first time being involved in WP:FFD though.  Therefore, I indeed was unfamiliar with how a small set of editors goes about this destructive work.  For the most part, this is a simple process with cleanliness as its goal.  But as I learned, disagree with them, and prepare to be buldozed and expect them to tell you something like "it's only because you don't understand."  --SkotyWATC 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Accident?
I suppose I should assume good faith with these edits too? From where I'm sitting, it looks to me like you nominated the image for deletion, didn't get what you wanted, and then took it upon yourself to delete the image by other methods. Rather than reporting you for trying to circumvent the process (which is known as disruptive edits), I'll assume good faith and leave it be. Gotta say though, this pretty much fails the duck test for me as well. --SkotyWATC 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disappoint you. I thought a non-free photo of the bleachers helped the article far more than a non-free image of a book cover that's not discussed or mentioned in the article. How awful of me. --Mosmof (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is discussed in the article and the book cover image is shown in that section. I agree that the picture you were trying to add does improve the article.  Did you consider replacing one of the other more low-quality images in the article rather than the one you failed to have deleted?  --SkotyWATC 06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal - the book isn't "discussed" in the sense that people independent of the book or the subject are expressing their opinion or analyzing the book. It's just an explanation of the book and a couple of pullquotes from the author and the writer of the foreword. But we can disagree on that. No big deal.
 * The issue though, is that the cover art is neither discussed nor mentioned, and therefore adds nothing to the reader's understanding beyond providing a nice visual on the page. Any information that's critical to understanding the article is already in the article, or can easily be added without using non-free content (for example, Wikipedia has this nice handy feature where the ISBN number will create a hyperlink to pages that will give full bibliographical details).
 * Anyway, the decision wasn't a "keep" - It was a "no consensus" with marginally more !votes for "delete". I figured I'd be bold and removing the image wouldn't do any irreparable harm to the article. Mosmof (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the policy which states that the cover art itself must be discussed. I've only read that critical commentary of the work itself (not necessarily the cover) is what's necessary.
 * The decision was the keep with the previous consensus regarding the image and not delete it. It's easy to hide behind statements like "consensus can change" when it's convenient for you, but in this case, it didn't change.  You're actions following that result were questionable at best.  --SkotyWATC 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NFCI is not a blanket allowance for all non-free book covers as long as the book is discussed. They must still pass WP:NFCC, and the cover image itself must have some sort of contextual significance. Also, there was no "previous consensus", just someone who uploaded an image and placed it in a relatively low-trafficked article. Consensus didn't change because none existed. --Mosmof (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're talking is circles. It does have contextual significance.  It's included in the context of the section that discusses the book.  Consensus did exist, as explained in this policy, by the fact that nobody has discussed this image since it was added to the article over 3 years ago.  The fact that you're the first person to object to the image in 3 years indeed means you were trying to change consensus which is fine, but it didn't change.  When you then go back and delete the image yourself not one day after consensus remained consistent (rather than the change you proposed) you crossed an obvious line.  --SkotyWATC 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. At this point, I say "have it your way." Damn the review process. --SkotyWATC 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally seeing the light. It was an incredibly frustrating process so I appreciate you backing off from your stance. Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Congratulations, you wore me out. The only light I've seen is that I'm giving up. I still believe you're wrong about this picture and many others. Did it ever occur to you to research the meaning of the conent on the cover and mention that in the prose rather than just deleting the picture.  I consider your contributions in this manner destructive, not constructive to the overall project.  Regardless, since you kept at it and I don't have time (or care enough about this particular article), you win.  Bravo. --SkotyWATC 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boy, do you lay on the passive aggressiveness thick. Your judgmental wag of the finger is duly noted. And yes, I did look at the prose. I have yet to find anything that discusses the cover image that makes the image essential to the article, but I'll look again. Mosmof (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

LL in 85
My bad. I intended to just remove the extra one tag. Dan56 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No biggie, no harm done. Thanks for the message. Mosmof (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arkansas Gymbacks
I have contested your prod of Arkansas Gymbacks and redirected the article to Arkansas Lady Razorbacks. While I agree that the subject does not warrant an independent article, I do believe that it is a plausible search term. If you disagree, feel free to list at RfD, or at AfD if the redirect gets reverted. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a pretty sensible solution. Thanks for doing that. Mosmof (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain why you disagree with my changes?
Don't just revert. --KerAvelt (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The series of edits was based on a bogus claim of consensus. There. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, there was more than consensus (other Anti-Rubashkin editors seemed to have conceded that he was not CEO), there was clear evidence that you nor your cohort have responded to, what motivated you to change it?

Oh, and I like the latest trick up your sleeve, we will see how far it goes. --KerAvelt (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Giggs
Hello mate, I really like the clean-up you did on the "post-career" section of Ryan Giggs. I am new to wikipedia, and I appreciate all the constructive criticism. I thought that section would be an important add to Giggs' profile, and I am glad that you agree, and did not just delete it. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakim91 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Athletic logos
As far as the Kent State University-related articles go, the script "K" logo is an "official" logo, but it is by no means a principal or even common alternate logo. The point of a logo in an article is to make that visual connection with the subject since many people see the logo in various media outlets (TV, newspaper, Internet). That's why articles about athletic programs, teams, and specific seasons all have places for the logo. The point of NFCC#1 is more for instances like photographs where an image can easily be obtained of a building or individual rather than using a copyrighted image from a website. With logos, you generally stick to the principal logo, which is also the most recognized. Being a KSU alum and living in Kent, the simple "K" is not that widely used. Its main use is merchandise and is most often found on hats and a few varieties of clothing. In other words, it's an alternate logo (conversely, the university also has an alternate logo that just features the eagle head and lightning that wraps around the K in the main logo). The athletic uniforms, website, and publications use the actual logo and all outside media sources (like ESPN.com) also use the full logo. The only major use of the "K" was in the recent attendance campaign that used the "K" as part of a larger logo (see http://www.90ksu.com). Even there, though, you'll note the use of the main logo is far more prevalent. Also, the file itself is a .gif file. It should be a png file at least. .gif files don't look good when they're resized. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. These aren't articles about entities. These articles are about seasons, and seasons don't have logos, so WP:LOGO doesn't apply, and these uses fail WP:NFCC. A reader is not going to have any trouble understanding the subject matter if the primary logo isn't there. So the choices are to either not use a logo at all or use a PD-text version that's shows up in the school's guidelines, thus no less valid than the primary logo. --Mosmof (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an issue you need to take up with the wikiprojects (WP:CFB and WP:COLB) that deal with the season and team articles since the current standard for all season and team articles is to include a logo in the infobox where available. Simply going on a personal interpretation of the rule is just going to get people upset at you.  I would argue that while not having the logo isn't detrimental to understanding the subject, including the logo on a season page is part of giving a fuller picture since the logo is something that identifies a specific team and makes that visual connection.  Using the text logo wouldn't be very accurate IMO.  It should be noted that for season articles, the logo used is whatever logo was in use that season, not simply the current logo.  So, for Kent State, any season articles from before 2000 wouldn't use the current logo (see 1972 Kent State Golden Flashes football team).  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note in regards to the use of the logo at Kent State University, I went through several university articles that are FA status and some of them do include the athletic logo in their athletics section while others do not, meaning it's a matter of preference, not of policy that they are included or not (see Texas A&M University, University of California, Riverside, and Florida Atlantic University). Of those that do include the logo that I read, none had any discussion of the logo within the body of the text.   The only "discussion" is simply the basic caption "The athletic logo for..." or some variant of that. It is worth noting that two of the logos have copyrightable elements (i.e. not just letters like Texas A&M).  Basically, the logo is an expected visual element of the athletic department.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize it as "a personal interpretation of the rule" - as I said in the WP:CFB discussion, it's what I've observed to be the common practice for college sports articles, whether it's actual policy or not.
 * As for university articles, I'm happy to concede that using sports team logos in athletic teams is acceptable use. It doesn't bother me that much since the use is pretty limited. I think the season and rivalry articles are where we should be concerned about overuse. Mosmof (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree we need to be concerned about overuse; I obviously don't think this is a case of that. Seeing that season articles have achieved FA-status with copyrighted logos (see 2007 USC Trojans football team) in the infobox leads me to believe that the policy, at least now, is acceptable outside of the projects themselves.  I can't say that for rivalry articles, though I think based on the following discussion that they could be permissible in the infobox.  Here is where it was discussed back in 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_30 --JonRidinger (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Iverson
it should be in the article. If you want to word it that Yahoo reported that a deal was agreed to, fine, but it definitely warrants a mention since the report has made the rounds.  Enigma msg  23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) he already has signed photo is here http://ntvspor.net/haber/basketbol/26075/iverson-imzayi-atti
 * plz cite if u can find and eng source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianconero1903 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup - I've included an AP article as source. Mosmof (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Why dont you review that page since you seem to watch Rabbis closely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't watch rabbis closely, so I decline, but thank you for thinking about me. Mosmof (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Am listening to you and have now contacted said individual a 3rd time. Am willing and want to compromise and hope sockpuppet will also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hack Wilson 1930.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Hack Wilson 1930.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

David Yates Image
Fair enough. You know what you're talking about! I'm sorry I still don't understand, so I'll leave the image be deleted. Unless you can upload an image of Yates (I'm a big fan of his!). Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Blog
I see comments on an archived page and I am not sure I may comment there, so, please allow me to comment here.

Here is the issue in question: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_81

Here are the comments I would add:

Oh my. Hipocrite brought an issue here and did not inform anyone (at least not on the relevant Talk page that I noticed), especially me. I only learned of this after having to search for it, in the archives, no less, after someone complained. The problem is the LA Times reports the map is the work of the American Library Association (ALA), but the ALA plagiarized the map from an unreliable source and the LA Times reported it as if the ALA wrote it since the ALA made it appear that way. "We're smack in the middle of Banned Books Week, an event sponsored by the American Library Assn., the American Publishers Assn. and others. This year, they've launched an interactive map that shows which books were officially banned or challenged, and where, in 2008." No, that is false. Some unnamed and unreliable source launched it, admitted so on a blog of the National Coalition Against Censorship that now claims ownership, but the ALA plagiarized it and presented it as its own. That's the problem with the LA Times source, namely, it repeats the ALA fraud through no fault of the LA Times. And plagiarism is fraud. And the ALA has plagiarized a number of things in my opinion, this map is just one. So the question really is, can you use a source as a reliable source when the information contained therein is proven to be false because someone else claims ownership and his claim is more believable. I say no.

Thanks, Mosmof, for your input, if you have the time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what more I can add beyond what you've laid out here. This doesn't seem to be a WP:RS issue, and there doesn't seem to be any question that ALA/BBW is republishing the map, whatever its origins. --Mosmof (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Humphreyspenaltycheltenham.jpg listed for deletion
I haven’t been on Wikipedia for some and the rest was due to frustration due good content being deleted.

I’m not bothered but in response…

File:Humphreyspenaltycheltenham.jpg

As clearly explained in the article. Humphreys missed a penalty against Cheltenham. This was a major moment in his career.

“Humphreys' first season at the club would end in disappointment as he missed the decisive penalty in the play-off semi final defeat to Cheltenham Town, which cost Hartlepool a place in Division Two. The penalty struck the woodwork twice and stayed out.[22] Humphreys' miss would send him to tears and he was photographed by Frank Reid, a photograph that would prove to be one of the most memorable images of Reid and Humphreys' career.”

File:Humphreystrancele.jpg

This was a case of exercising demons. It was a major moment in his career. One of the defining moments in his career.

“In the 2004–05 season, Humphreys helped Hartlepool once again make the play-offs. During the play-off semi-final against Tranmere, Humphreys had the task of taking a penalty for Hartlepool in sudden death. This was the first time Humphreys had taken a penalty since his crucial miss at Cheltenham. This time he scored and sent Hartlepool through to the play-off final against his old club Sheffield Wednesday.[31] This helped to erase the memories of Cheltenham”

So to say those were “Decorative image, no discussion about the image” is wrong. But you’ve got what you’ve wanted. This has proven my point. Englishrose (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point was? In your comment above, you make a claim about the photograph, but that claim of significance isn't attributed to anyone, and the deleted image is not the one discussed in the article. I'm not sure how this is a case of "good content being deleted" and I really don't appreciate the petty, passive aggressive "you've got what you've wanted" line. Mosmof (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The deleted images signified memorable moments in the players career that were in the article. It was like a real life movie. Guy misses penalty, guy has regrets, guy writes a book about it "From Tears to Cheers", guy erases the bad memories and scores a sudden death penalty in the same situation. The two images are linked and capture defining moments. The significance of the photo was attributed to Ritchie Humphreys but there you go. Englishrose (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So the image is significant according to the photographer and the subject of the photo. Huh. Mosmof (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the most simplest of English. The image is significant as it depicts a significant and important moment in the history of Ritchie Humphreys and Hartlepool United F.C.. Englishrose (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And in a nutshell, you've articulated the most common misunderstanding of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI that I encounter. Showing a historic and/or significant event does not necessarily make the image itself historic or significant, which is one of the criteria for fair use under Wikipedia's non-free content policies. --Mosmof (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nokia image
It is subject to deletion on Commons due to strict codes, they can't find the source. It should be kept on Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Commons image. It seems that the rationale for deletion would be as valid here as it is there. I'm wondering which specific Commons policies you're referring to. --Mosmof (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I noticed you changed the notice. Yeah, kinda confused why it would be A.O.K. here but not on Commons. --Mosmof (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Updated message: It is subject to deletion on Commons due to strict codes that they cannot verify the source. The uploader appears credible, so in good faith, it should be kept locally on Wikipedia. I've since changed the template. Editor182 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we always assume good faith. But acting in good faith doesn't necessarily mean doing things correctly, and assumption of good faith doesn't preclude asking questions and for verification. It seems best to let the Commons deletion process take its course, and THEN we can talk about putting it up here. But if it comes to that, I'll probably end up putting the image on PUI, just to get a few more eyeballs to look at the image. --Mosmof (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but really, who knows how many images are on Wikipedia from authors who upload and claim they own the work, however, that may not be the case, but it cannot be proven otherwise.. point is, this follows the same principle, the user claims they sourced it from such and such, but it cannot be proven. We assume good faith and if it can be proven that it was sourced from a copyrighted domain - then we can throw out good faith.. but for now, lets assume good faith. Take a look at the original image, and I've since edited it with noticeable improvement. It's a poor image. If you're going to source a Nokia N8 image from somewhere and claim it's from such and such, then why not pick a better image.. good faith and reasonable doubt.. it would be great if we didn't bring in the eyeballs, and say we have reasonable doubt and good faith to prevent any course of action for review.. Commons? Different story, they assume no good faith if you're claiming another source, it must be verifiable, and fair enough, it is dedicated to free media. Editor182 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at Image use policy. Verifiability is very much a requirement for images here on English Wikipedia, regardless of the level of enforcement. And while we may not be able to verify a lot of the PD claims on images here, but because they're personal snap shots or come from established users or whatever the reason, we generally have good reason to believe the claims are valid. In any case, this amounts to an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.
 * But this isn't just a random picture with a simple "I own this work" claim. It's a high rez photo, and you might think it's a shitty image, but it's not that easy to get a clean product shot. And if a government agency is really the source, then it shouldn't be hard to find the exact source and copyright details. In any case, I don't see the issue with bringing in more eyeballs to review the image. That's the whole point of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, to avoid and correct mistakes and to gather more information by bringing people together. Mosmof (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

-*sigh* bring in the clowns. ;) Editor182 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed "restoring original response for the sake of logic" and I take offense to that, as I'm not illogical. Perhaps I don't have excellent Talk page format and took me a while to work out how the heck to put up a Deletion review, even putting it on the articles discussion page, but that's because I don't spend much time, no, as little time as I can on Talk, and as much time as I can on articles. If you look at my contributions, I've managed to avoid Talk since June, where I had another dispute. It's too bad I can't put my activity on private, it was one of the clowns from June that listed my image for deletion, because he "monitors my account periodically".. I couldn't care less what others are doing, but it appears I have more monitors after this second dispute.. I may have to create a new account periodically.. point being, I think you can excuse my imperfect Talk page etiquette based on I don't care for Talk. Editor182 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That wording probably wasn't the best - I just did it so I could see what my response was to when I came back later. You've been perfectly civil with me here and no offense was intended. Mosmof (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sunkist logo 2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sunkist logo 2008.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
We have rarely if ever agreed but you seem to be interested in these issues. Spend 5 minutes would you and review Rabbi Pinto page. Is it not possible you once in your life can agree with me ? Surely items like the most expensive synagogue in the US, the fact that he's not well known in Israel and death curses which are mentioned in all their sources are relevant, no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to sympathize with either side on this edit war. It's not that I don't think you're right - you don't seem interested in actually finding a middle ground with your fellow editor. --Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say that, have you actually read the materials ? What have they given in on ? Am absolutely willing but they consider him a gd like figure. Whats so hard to understand even about the bottom items ? Lets say I accept not listing the other stuff - is the bottom not relevant @all ? Thank you: Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why there's a talk page, and both sides could probably tone down the rhetoric. --Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wont help so say so but I know you are good at this and know that you view your form of justice as fair. If you read the issues and stories here you will see I am right and being bullied and know you dont give in to that sort of thing. We have gotten along well online lately, no ? How about simply reviewing it ? Read the talk page - They added spiritual leader 2x in 2 paragraphs and I am the irrational one ? They think this guy is the Messiah and their sources say exactly what I do but they wont include it. The guy has a $30 Million building and thats not relevant ? Take a look ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has brought this up at several noticeboards and user talk pages. Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gahhh... he is posting at every other noticeboard. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are really really good at pushing your political agenda and simply opposing me. as a rule i say black and u say white without even reading it. You mean to tell me you will accept Arutz 7 as a source on other issues across the board ? Did you bother to actually read the Pinto piece ? 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's my political agenda? I didn't realize I had one! Let's not distort facts here - you lied and said the source was an "obscure blog". It

Is neither obscure nor a blog, and you know it. Mosmof (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip McCluskey
Hi MosMof - I noticed the tags you placed on the Philip McCluskey article and wanted to discuss with you. I noticed that you flag things or make changes but have not yet entered into a discussion, so would appreciate a two-way conversation if possible, in the spirit of collaboration. I did contest the third party source tag because the article does, in fact, include third-party sources (not self-published) and the only first-person information comes from the source of the article himself, which is definitely allowed under Wiki guidelines. As for your other tags, some questions:

1. How short do you feel an introduction needs to be in order for you to not deem it "too long"? I've noticed many different intro lengths on Wiki, without this tag. 2. How many additional references would satisfy? I was not aware that there was a quota for references, as long as valid third-party references were included. 3. Please give specific examples in the text that you feel are written like an advertisement; the tone is as neutral as possible. If you disagree, then you are welcome to make edits that will make it sound more neutral.

Thank you, MosMof. If you cannot give specific answers to the above questions, then please consider removing the tags you previously put on the article. I do want to have a high-quality article up here and appreciate your help, but also need guidance and a helping hand from the community, which includes you. For us newbies, it goes a long way if you back up your tags with some additional reasoning. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenadj (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the response to this post, MosMof. Thank you. Your suggestions make sense; I'll try to keep adding to the article as I find more sources. You're also welcome to make additions as you think are necessary, of course. I have a question about these tags: if I improve upon the article in response to a tag, what's the tag removal etiquette? Is it OK for me to remove it, is it something you remove, or is it simply open to the community to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenadj (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)