User talk:Morenooso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Morenooso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, thanks for letting me know about three sheets to the wind. The band doesn't meet necessary notability requirements WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cburnett 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request to Reverse Speedy Deletion

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to contest your choice for the speedy deletion of the Trans-Formers entry that was recently added and removed from Wikipedia.

Below, I have provided a list of reliable sources which can support the legitimacy of the entry. I encourage you to pursue them in order to approve the article.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that there is room for all different kinds of knowledge to be shared, with topics ranging from pop culture to significant people, events, and places throughout history. It is unquestionably a non-elitist forum, with a purpose of disseminating knowledge in order to teach people about something that they may not fully understand.

Whether or not the Trans-Formers is something in which you have a personal interest or belief should not be the issue at hand, as the decision to keep an article should be based upon the demand by the readers.

With related articles such as those of the psychics Edgar Cayce and Daniel Dunglas Home, as well as psychic abilities such as telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance, there is clearly a demand for articles related to the Trans-Formers, and I believe that there is room for this entry amongst them.

My suggestion is that the Trans-Formers article remains on-line to allow individuals to contribute to the article and discuss it in order for it to become an entry that is undoubtedly of worth to Wikipedia. There should also be links from related pages to give individuals the opportunity to discover the page for themselves.

However, if you decide to stand by your decision, could you please provide an explanation?

References:

Hosein, Francis. Vers une Transformation Interieure. SamSarah Rainbow Planet: 2002.

Labonte, Marie Lise. La Médiumnité, Cette Terre Inconnue: Deux Médiums Répondent à Vos Questions. Shanti: 1990.


[edit] Helpme

Hello, I was reading this page, Keystone National High School, and it reads as if self-published. I wanted a second opinion on it. Morenooso 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it as needing a neutral point of view, if you wish to edit it yourself; feel free! Somitho 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it needs work

[edit] helpme

I was reading this random page, Arturo Skinner and it reads biased to me. I cited it as having no references but think it needs another citation about narrow POV. Since it concerns a religious figure, I wanted another established editor to give it that citation (if necessary). Morenooso 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked over it, and it seems fine. It is a stub though, and I flagged it as such. Somitho 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme request

This article, Reki (.hack) reads like unadulterated spam or non-sense. I recommend deletion. Wanted a second opinion.

In the future, this sort of thing should probably be tagged for deletion with {{subst:prod|Insert reason here}}. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it up

I think you are doing a great job! at least you are interested. please continue. --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

If you have any other questions, I am the one to ask to get complicated theoretical answers. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Aguilera

I've noticed another admin nailed him as soon as I tried. Anyways, the easiest way to restore the links section is to go back to the working version of the article, copy the links code, then go back to the current version (usually clicking the "article" tab twice) then edit the current version. Happy editing.--wL<speak·check·chill> 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You did right. I was trying to fix it at the same time. --wL<speak·check·chill> 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush vandalism

Don't worry, I'll semi-protect this article pretty soon. I did a range block to put a temporary stop to the vandalism there but they seem to have swerved around it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember, 3RR doesn't include fixing vandalism so don't worry about that... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Armenian Genocide

Thanks for the message. I went ahead and reverted all the edits. :: ZJH (T C E) 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Morenooso 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR by anon on Armenian Genocide

That sort of editing strikes me as being more vandalism than a content dispute. I've kept a tab open to watch the user, but they seem to have stopped for now. If they pick up again, I'd recommend reporting to WP:AIV -- it's got the fastest turnaround of any of the admin boards, but deals with some very narrow circumstances. WP:AN3 is useful, but filling out the reports is a bit of a pain. x.x Feel free to let me know if you'd like to see how one might be set up, anyway, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 3RR reports are tricky to figure out, but once you get the idea, it's just a bunch of copy-pasting. Normally I recommend going trough {{test1}} through {{test4}} (or the new warnings, if you know about those), although in this case I issued a {{bv}} warning, which is generally acknowledged as an equivalent of {{test4}}. I can't speak for every admin, but I plan to block them if I see another iffy edit. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty good with vandalism and templates. >_> Past that, not so much, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Pine Center

Hi. Was it necessary to speedy this article? Wouldn't prod have been sufficient? Curiously, William Pietri 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I call 'em how I see them. Morenooso 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting that speedying articles containing verifiable facts written by long-time editors is not a good way to see it. As the policy says, "speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content." In the future, could you cut people a little more slack? Thanks, William Pietri 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-Can you give it more time for other editors to improve it instead of tagging it right after it was created? Obviously, not all articles are created as masterpieces. And plus, the article is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website as stated in the speedy deletion template. I don't see any grounds for speedy deletion, since some articles need time for their notability to be stated and improved. Skyscraper Phoenix 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

100 Pine Center article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because in the sentence that states the notability reason the same sentence specifies the types of articles that meet this criteria. 100 Pine Center is an article about an office tower, not mentioned in the sentence. Please give more time to improve the article.Huang7776 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your selection for speedy deletion

Based on your edits and comments, your strict editing style needs to be changed. You cannot tag an article to be deleted just because you see it as insignificant in your point of view. Judge by Wikipedia policy, not your own. If you feel an article is not notable, please contribute to it or allow time for the article to be improved. Since everybody makes mistakes, I hope you learn to go easy on things from now on. Skyscraper Phoenix 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I judge by Wikipedia standards. There must be over 300 buildings in San Francisco. This building is no more notable than any other. To use an analogy, let's say someone was developing a list of condominiums in a given city. One condo is not more notable unless there is good reason. Morenooso 14:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-I think you need understand that not all articles that are insignificant need to be deleted. Instead, use the Importance template to let other users know the article needs their importance to be stated. An article about a building should be deleted if the article is totally useless, such as an advertisement promoting something about a building or spam. Skyscraper Phoenix 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to understand WP:BOLD and that editors have different viewpoints. I do not appreciate your comments as I am not a new user here. Morenooso 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you; you don't seem to understand what I just said.Skyscraper Phoenix 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do and I disagree. Notability is still not established. Morenooso 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Once you've been here a little longer, you'll see that notability is a guideline, and a contentious one at that. The relevant core policies are WP:NPOV and WP:V, which the article in question clearly met, and which speedy candidates don't. I'm all for WP:BOLD, but don't forget to balance that with WP:AGF, WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CON. William Pietri 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been here over one year. Only in the last four months did I register. I have a sincere difference of opinion on its notability and am WP:COOL about it. I will explore it when I have more time later today. Morenooso 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to settle all of this and make it clear, yes, editors have different viewpoints and different styles of editing, your style is unlike my style. However, when it comes to nominating an article for deletion, there are set Wikipedian guidelines for that, and you cannot use your own style or feelings to do that. Believe me, I know when an article is to be speedy deleted and I have done that to my own skyscraper article that was changed into spam (advertisement and copyright violation) by another user. Read the speedy deletion criteria carefully and you will see my article does not fall into the speedy deletion category because it does contain useful information. Just because an article does not state its importance mean that the unimportant article should be deleted. Understand that there are certain types of articles like autobiographies, companies, etc that fall under the speedy delete if they are insignificant. That is because these types of articles are prone to being articles about spam, nonsense, and advertising, like propaganda about yourself, friends ,etc, not building articles. If you still feel that this is the case, then ask an administrator that you want to change the criteria for speedy deletion. In addition, WP:BOLD means to update/improve the article, not to delete it, please read it carefully and do not say I don't understand WP:BOLD. Of course I want to be bold and improve the article, the information that is in the article is all that there is so far on the internet, Emporis.com. It takes time for more information to be revealed. It takes time for an article to be improved and obviously, you did not allow time for the article to be improved by tagging speedy deletion. Please learn to find a balance between being too lax and going overboard in tagging articles for deletion and balance that too with other Wikipedian aspects like WP:COOL; this is the reason why you seem a newcomer, but I like your efforts in anti-vandalism. Skyscraper Phoenix 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not take it as a personal attack. And, you still seem to be making an assumption about me with the points 'bolded in all the revisions (as evidenced by three changes taking more than 15 minutes - and interrupting my activity here and elsewhere) you have made in typing your long response. You seem to forget WP:OWN. In addition, I still have serious notability reservations as I follow several talkpages on my Watchlist about the policy. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY along with the fact that Wikipedia is not a phone book for all the buildings in San Francisco seems to be lost and is just one point of contention. Morenooso 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, do not try argue with me by saying I forget this and that; you and I will go on forever accusing each other for forgetting this. Obviously I am not you so of course I need to make assumptions about you; do not accuse me of making them and actually disprove them instead. Ok, we both went overboard on several Wikipedian aspects, made mistakes and forgot to read several little details; this is the learning curve we all have to face in Wikipedia, so bear with the mistakes instead of accusing. I just wanted to make important points clear to you by editing three times in 15 min. On top of that, go see List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Miami, since you obviously misunderstand that the list and buildings are made to provide info on the building, and I created them with the same purpose in mind. I never intended on the articles to be a part of a directory. This was only a suggestion and you thought I wanted you to seriously change your style. You could have just said "No, I do not want to follow your suggestion + reason" and get it over with. I only suggested that you could become a better editor by not being as serious. You may have become a better editor by listening to other's and/or my comments (that may have sounded like libel to your ears), but too bad, you missed the opportunity to improve yourself. You may go ahead and waste more time by tagging the many 1000's of unimportant articles and stubs with speedy delete, instead of actually improving the article for the benefit of all. I thank you greatly for your misunderstanding of my comments, so I take my now pointless apology back. I am not going to read or reply to any additional comments here, since you feel that I am wasting your time and bothering you greatly, and you probably hate me now. Once again, thank you for being only a great anti-vandal/cleanup machine in my view instead of being a better editor overall and listening to others. I say no more; no hablo más.Skyscraper Phoenix 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you put there are ways to settle this. BTW, WP:BOLD to me means any editor, from the novice to the master has the right as per that article to improve Wikipedia. Everyone has their viewpoints which often are different from one another. You still have convinced me of your article's notability. Now, you be WP:COOL and let my talkpage settle down for awhile. Morenooso 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

re: Iceman (song)

That page needs updating, if anything. "From his FORTHCOMING album Rotten Apple"? Come on.--Dlae 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And January has passed.--Dlae 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content by blanking the page is not the answer as per your action. Morenooso 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidents using radio

In my opinion, maybe the best approach would be to only tag presidents that have made significant contributions to radio. Calvin Coolidge broadcast both his political speeches and his inauguration on the radio. He also created the Federal Radio Commission.

FDR used the radio for his fireside chats.

By the way, please register as a participant on the project page. --PhantomS 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Harding trivia to the 1922 in radio article. --PhantomS 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating?

Sorry for such a trivial little thing but in one of your recent edits, you tagged it with "I hope I'm not dating myself"

-) Look, after several hours of Wikipedia, my brain had gone to mush, and all I could think was.."At least chosing the movie would be easy..." Then I fell about laughing for 5 mins. I tried to explain this to others - they didn't get it. I'm hoping you will and that it'll give you a grin. (Even if it is to think I'm an idiot!) Jacketed 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I should bring it up with some friends. We were discussing the Great Depression the other day. Morenooso 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garland Science

Hi! I removed the speedy tag that you added to this article. Whilst I agree with you that it is unfortunate that this article was apparently created by a representative of Garland Science, I do think that this company is a reasonable subject for an article given that the textbooks that they publish (particularly Molecular Biology of the Cell) are recommended texts for many university courses, and that a number of their authors are well-know scientists. I hope that now I have cleaned the article up a bit you will agree with me that it should stay, but if you don't please send it to AfD. Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I watched what you did after removing the tag and am somewhat impressed. Maybe you could impress upon the author why the Wikipedian community frowns upon self-created edits will suffice. Morenooso 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have left a note on Garlandinforma's talk page to back up (and hopefully reinforce) your message about wanting to avoid COIs. —JeremyA (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
From my time here on Wikipedia, COI edits are a sure fire way to an AfD. Perhaps your advice with a recommendation to not edit the article (putting comments on the talkpage would be okay or requesting a change through a ticket to the Wikipedia head office) is the best way to go. Morenooso 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder where that link from an anonymous IP to informa came from? Morenooso 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "New Messages"

Hi! I have a question: at the top of wikipedia pages, I'm getting an orange bar saying "You have new messages (last change)". I clicked on it, and read the messages, I think, but it is still appearing. Am I stuck with this orange notification for the rest of my life!? As an experienced user, I'm sure you know more about this than I do...

(problem solved!)

[edit] Vandal

User:140.211.69.11 just vandalized the The Hype about Hydrogen article. I see that he has received many warnings. Can you block him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Longoria

Hi Morenooso, I am new to wiki and I am interested in Fashion. I have added reference to Eva Longoria so could you check and let me know if that format is ok?

Thanks Julia

You learn quickly. The citation and reference appear good to me. Another good refence for what should be linked to Wikipedia is WP:EL. Reliable sources are your best reference and should be like a footnote a college professor would not challenge. BTW, since you have shown good faith in learning to cite and providing a reference to this article, I am rescinding my warning. Happy editting! Morenooso 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Per this:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Morenooso 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks. Please look at the article's history before putting warnings on other's userpages. Thanks! Real96 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this after seeing what really happened. I tried to rescind it but you had already cleared it. I thought the vandal had come back again in another account. One vandal has done that already on my userpage. My sincere apologies. Morenooso 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I am a RC Patrol editor and that is why my page is being struck. Morenooso 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you should NEVER start with a test 4 once a user has vandalized your page for the first time. You should begin with a blatantvandal, then with a test4. When the user has vandalized your page for more than one time (i.e. increments without any reverts, then you should use test4im). Real96 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting vandals

I don't know if you noticed, but User talk:202.138.157.51 already had a final warning on their talk page. Once {{test4}} is applied and violated, feel free to report the vandal to WP:AIV (already done for this user). John Reaves (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.241.232.139

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave him his fourth warning, which indicates a potential blockage, at 19:24Z today and he vandalized the same article right after my warning. The user, who issued the next warning at what appears to be a level one, is the follow-on next warning of vandalism. Morenooso 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's all on his talkpage. Here is the diff where I issued the level four delete template. In addition, looking the February 23, 2007 message, this IP received a level four warning then. Its contrib record shows a history of vandalism Morenooso 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you please provide details of the edit made following the final warning. At the moment the last recorded edit in the contributions history is 19:23. Cheers TigerShark 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
He made it then. I was on another article and cited him when I reversed the edit. He did two edits on the same article in less than two minutes (one which I reversed and another by another user). If you can't see that, then let's drop it. Morenooso 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What I can see is that the last edit was at 19:23, then you warned them at 19:24. There were no further edits following the final warning at 19:24, so the posting to AIV was a mistake. There is nothing to drop, just please be more careful in future. TigerShark 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up on Appeal

I just wanted to follow-up with the decision to remove the Francis Hosein and Trans-Formers articles. It is my understanding that contributors have the right to an appeal when an article is removed, and I don’t feel that my appeal has been adequately addressed.

You informed me that the decision was made by an administrator, and I was hoping to contact that person directly to be able to clearly understand why the articles were removed. I have provided accurate references, as well as finding many similar pages to the Francis Hosein entry. These includes entries on Doreen Virtue, Esther Hicks, J.Z. Knight, James Van Praagh, Jane Roberts, Jeanne Dixon, Lisa Williams, Ronna Herman, Ruth Montgomery, and Sylvia Browne.

In some instances, the Hosein entry had no more references or credibility than any of these other psychics who have found a place in Wikipedia. For this reason, Hosein’s entry should be included amongst the other psychics, or they should all be excluded from Wikipedia.

If you decide to stick by the decision, I would really appreciate a concrete answer for why the articles were removed, either by you or the administrator.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[edit] Francis Quinn

Hi, Morenooso. Just wanted to say "thanks" for adding the photo of Francis Quinn as well as the additional information. Looks great.

Craig.borchardt 19 March 2007

Nicely done! Morenooso 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] american question

March 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to American Question. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Morenooso 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the original edit. I was informed by Carolyn Anhalt that the content, a reference to the American Question as "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" though I cited two publications I considered interesting, was not Google's top response to the phrase and therefore was substandard as an encyclopedic reference without acknowledging what was thus perceived as a more valid or common use of the term and therefore diminished the value of Wikipedia, so I removed it.

[edit] Reply

Yes I noticed that, after I had placed the speedy. Good catch. RobJ1981 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion: watchables

i'm currently trying to gather more info on the watchables, but resources are few...however, i do think they deserve stub status :)

--Sammarlowe 06:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every article posted on Wikipedia is notable. In addition, another user nominated your article for CSD too. Morenooso 06:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Hamburger

I see that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamburger&diff=prev&oldid=116921566) edit is in good faith but still watch your back whale reverting vandalism. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately a large deletion also occurred. What you see/saw also reflects the multiple edits made by editors trying to combat an aggressive IP that made six edits at last count. Morenooso 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO DELETE Such an important financial figure? Also, is there another way to communicate? I'm knew to wiki.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markmoore1948 (talk • contribs).

User:Deon555, who posted the above message, nominated your article for deletion. Quite frankly, I agree with him. Please use a talkpage and not a userpage like you did mine. You need to speak with him but it is now up to an admin to decide. 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Greetings. What part of WP:ATT do you believe supports your reverts? The applicable language would appear to be around "Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" but in this case the citation is the founder of the project, speaking about the project, on the project. There can be no more of an authoritative source than that. Such statements of intent are usually, and most reliable, taken from the horses mouth so to speak. Do I need to make it more clear in the citation that this is the founder speaking on the project about the project? Thanks for your help, and happy editing. --Gmaxwell 04:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on the talkpage. People can say one thing in a blog or even public speech and retract tomorrow. In addition, no mention of an actual change to the license is mentioned - meaning the filing of paperwork to change status. Talking about a business model, which is a direct quote does not equate to a filing either online or with the state the project is licensed in. To use "logic" involves WP:OR which also is not allowed. Morenooso 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have responded over there on the CZ related points raised.
Here I will respond on your commentary about logic: How do you think the standing policy was created in the first place if not via logic? :) While I agree that sometimes our policies look randomly generated, I can assure you that a fair bit of thought has gone into them. It really is silly to reject a parties claims about themselves and we can't cry WP:OR and hide from that simple fact. WP:OR applies to our content, not to the methods we use to determine our policy. --Gmaxwell 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Kind of like the manner used in the Essjay controversy? He invoked logic and credentials too. Morenooso 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If we can't use logic, we might as well quit now and begin filing papers. Mak (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:OR. I equate using logic like math theorems. Just because you post two truth statements, a false statement based upon logic is still a false statement. Morenooso 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Read Logic. It's the way any human comes to a reasonable and sane conclusion. Without logic we can't come to reasonable and sane conclusions. Mak (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Read proof theory. To invoke "logic" as Mister Spock would sometimes fail as in Amok Time. Morenooso 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about rigid adherence to specific rules to come to a ridiculous conclusion. I'm talking about every-day, normal human thought processes, which of necessity use logic. Logic rejects completely dumb conclusions. Let's not dicker about it any more, just understand that if we reject logic we're really in trouble. Mak (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was specifically mentioned in that article about a change to the non-profit status. Everyday thought processes are what got Wikipedia into trouble with the Essjay controversy. Allowing one user to invoke logic and credentials is not the way this Wikipedia should go. All my actions have been pure and true as a Page Patroller. Morenooso 05:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Pure and true, perhaps.. but "innocent" is can often be used condescendingly to imply naivety. In any case, your invocation of Essjay seems quite random to me. No one has invoked credentials. However, you have been using a bogus argument from authority when you use a citation to WP:ATT as the support for your position. In any case, I know you are trying to help, I just believe you are incorrect on this matter. Life goes on. --Gmaxwell 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My invokation of wikilinked policy does not imply naivety. I am quite aware of how Essjay rammed content disputes down the throats of other users upto and including his credentials and admin powers. Morenooso 06:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what do you do on Commons or more correctly your user status? Morenooso 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I knew before I asked that question. I do my research as a Page Patroller. I am not naive. Morenooso 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If I'm busy cramming my status down your throat, why do you have to ask me what my status is? :) If it's not me you're talking about.. who are you talking about? --Gmaxwell 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Healix

I googled Healix and it seems it if it returns several things, but I posted the institute's webpage in case you'd want to know. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was split on the db nocontext or advert. You may decline the CSD if you are so inclined and I will honor your wishes. Morenooso 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entarians

Thanks for the heads up, they all look like a hoax to me. (I'm reasonably familiar with the history of Koreans in the Russian Far East). The fact that this alleged ethnic group shares a name with a World of Warcraft guild clinches it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entarians. Cheers, cab 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes

Per WP:HOAX, suspected hoaxes are not speedyable, precisely because they might turn out to be legitimate. In the case of the "Entarians", I highly doubt that they'll turn out to be legitimate, but we need to extend good faith in all directions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. I stand corrected. Morenooso 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. I've watchlisted the AfD in case it degenerates further than it already has. Some of those articles bundled in are db-empty candidates, but this kind of thing should probably be treated as one big ugly mess, rather than several small homely ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ghetto Cristal

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ghetto Cristal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stlemur 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the article. If you read or understand the title, this is an attack article. The user removed some of the other attack items in article. You should have reviewed the entire article as created. Morenooso 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] cancellation

Thank you but i'm now very tired and annoyed reading all those advices and pages about wikipedia policies. Since days I wait for an administrator to cancel my account. I found incredible being in the impossibility to cancel an account I created. "Do I have to make vandalism in Wiki pages to finally found someone clever enough to answer to my request and cancel my account?" I asked.. I had no reply. So if you can't really do something for me, please stop writing me. Thank you. MDMDMDMD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs), 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: re:MikeMcGD

Hi there. As you know, we don't "cancel" or "delete" accounts. Nor we can block users so that they stay away (it is not allowed (check here). I recovered the full history of his talk page, and left a message: if he wants to leave, just log off and never come back. While the page moving around can be considered vandalism, I take it he is just a user who does not know what to do here. Now, I will check the images he has uploaded, which appear to have a wrong license. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Just wanted to accomodate him. Morenooso 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jen Banbury

I have removed the speedy deletion tag from this article, as there is a small claim of notability, thus removing it from the realm of CSD. If you still think the article should be deleted, I would recommend pursuing the articles for deletion process. Thanks! Natalie 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded and rewritten the article significantly. I think the notability is now clear, but the inital claim of being the first to report on abuse at Abu Ghraib is a pretty clear claim of notability. DES (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

I'll leave it for the moment, because I'm not interested in an edit war, but your request that I not remove the expert tag from articles I (re-)created isn't backed by any WP policy I'm aware of. Would you return to the article's talk page and name a specific concern you have with the current article? That might be a better way to establish a consensus. Dppowell 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please link the talkpage discussion you mention on Talk:Foclut? I'd like to establish its relevance for myself. Dppowell 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is linked by by posts there. Morenooso 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the notability tag is specious and won't hold up to scrutiny, so I'm not concerned about that. However, neither of your responses (here or on the article's talk page) make any sense. Please clarify yourself. Failing that, I'd like a link (or better yet, a diff) that satisfactorily explains your use of the "expert tag" and your substantiates your contention that I may not remove the tag from an article I created. Dppowell 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't do "specious". I review quite a few articles. If it is found to be notable, no harm no foul. You might want to review WP:OWN. Morenooso 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You referred to a historical location referenced by Saint Patrick and numerous scholars as "fictional," and placed the tag based on that characterization. A published, third-party source is referenced, which is what is required to establish notability. I'm not WP:OWNing the article; I created it in response to a request from another editor. You promptly arrived and placed contentious tags on it without citing any reasons for your actions. I stand by my actions. Dppowell 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The instructions on Template:Expert-subject indicate that you should "start a section on the article discussion page describing what you wish the expert to address." Please proceed on Talk:Foclut at your earliest convenience. Dppowell 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This article was originally a much longer and rather dubious one under another title, & not by Dppowell at all. I placed a notice on the St Patrick talk page asking that it be looked at "by someone who knows". This has now happened; the article is far shorter, properly written & has a good-quality reference. As far as I am concerned, attention from an expert is what it has had. I don't belive notability is an issue either. You comments are unneccessarily cryptic and rather odd - what makes you think the location is "fictional"? I will remove the tag. If you want to add it again you should explain clearly on the talk page what issues you believe the article has. Johnbod 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiernan-sear

I've given the user a last warning. A black should be deterring enough. Circeus 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the records, Blerds is title-protected.Circeus 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you're on top of it!!! Morenooso 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your AIV post

Hi there, Morenooso. I've given Toa Mario one last warning on this one. He seems a bit confused about all this, so I'm giving one more chance; definitely let or another admin know if there's trouble. I'm not convinced this falls under A1, though, so I have not deleted the article. The reason is that this article seems to me to have enough context to be a stub, even though it has little content (from WP:CSD: "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub.") So I think this isn't quite valid for speedy (though it could likely be deleted through other methods). Anyway, that's what I've done for now. We can discuss further if you wish. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Understand. Morenooso 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Though, looking at it again, this one is really dang close to being unacceptable even for a stub. I'm going to add the speedy tag again so another admin can decide. Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of the school. And, an internet search gets no hits. The school may also be under construction. Morenooso 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adolescent sexuality

It was my intent to remove that content - i moved it to a new article. See the talk page for detals. I hope you don't mind, but I am goign to revert back to the way I had it. --Illuminato 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you read the talk, you will see that there is consensus that the content formerly there is more about behaviors than ad. sexuality itself. My new page for ad. sexuality is a cleaner version of the consensus page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminato (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
I disagree on your talkpage where other editors have disagreed with you too. In addition, I disagreed on the article talkpage. Morenooso 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Moorematthews 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMorenooso_5568.html"