User talk:Tinosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre

With regards to your comments on Mountain Meadows massacre: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

This warning is in regard to your edit summary for [1] . BRMo 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks!

This warning is in regard to your talk page comment [2] BRMo 04:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Tinosa, recognize that your comments are described as WP:NPA only by some editors; their comments are supposed to be ignored, I suppose. Keep up the good work. Duke53 | Talk 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
You have earned this many times over; keep up the GREAT work! Duke53 | Talk 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [3]WikieZach| talk 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[4]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Historical Revisionism comment in Template talk:LDS

I am very puzzled by your comment about historical revisionism in regards to the organization of the "LDS" template. I was trying to establish an article and its connection to the LDS Movement, why it might be justified for inclusion with a general navigation template as opposed to other items that seemed to me for being of lesser importantce.

Is this historical revisionism by making up stuff on a talk page that is out of context from the original discussion, or are you making a comment about particular historical events that I mentioned there? You are in particular suggesting this terminology as a pejorative, but I really don't see where your comment has context to the discussion. --Robert Horning 01:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rexburg, ID

While Rick Davis is an incredible professor, he is not notable enough to be included as a Notable native 69.92.61.221 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More charges of historical revisionism

Hi Tinosa, I share puzzlement of your charge(s) of historical revisionism. In my case, re James Buchanan, of which I am not the authoring editor, but more trying to avoid the complete whitewash of the subject of the man's sexual orientation by deletion. Newsweek and the New Yorker which have published articles considering the sexuality of Buchanan and Lincoln, are, of course, easily dismissable as being a part of the liberal media cabal. But C-SPAN's Brian Lamb and presidential historian Michael Beschloss, both who have written and spoken about the possibility of Buchanan's homosexuality, are not exactly radical fringe.

Attempting to understand the man, and considering the possibility of his sexuality isn't defamation. Of course Buchanan was not "gay," that's a twentieth century construct. He'd probably look dreadful in a Speedo even if still alive. Making an argument that Buchanan was homosexual can not be concieved as advancing a gay agenda. The association doesn't exactly bolster the profile of contemporary homosexuals. What group would want to claim a man who sat back and allowed eight states to claim succession without taking action?

From my perspective the best revisionism to be found on this site, and it is a revisionism of quite recent history, comes from the pro-Romney editors on the Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 articles. They deserve respect if for nothing more than their fortitude, ceasless 24/7 surveilance and revets, curiously often from IP address identitified users. I live in Massachusetts and remember Mitt speaking to the gay community about what a friend they would have in him. And also how he assured supporters of abortion he would not seek to overturn abortion rights. Of course in this bluest of blue states he really could not have been elected otherwise. But how carefully, and completely,' the editorial airbrush is deployed in his articles here. I have zero reservations about voting for a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, But 360-degree swings on policy after policy does begin to erode a candidate's authenticity. After changing his policy on gay issues, abortion, the Iraqi war, and death sentence I feel he begins to emerge as a bit of a political prostitute, and at a time we so badly need good cantidate from both parties. Best, JimCApitol3 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Buchanan Page

Your input is requested on the Talk:James Buchanan page. A couple of people are arguing for inclusion of material sourced only to books known to be pop history and Salon.com. Any aid in the discussion would be appreciated.K. Scott Bailey 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Mountain Meadows massacre

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Tinosa! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ririe, Idaho page

Please stop vandalizing the Ririe, Idaho page I created. It's the first page I've created and I'm proud of it and want it to be useful. Clearly your beef is with portraying Mormons in any sort of positive light, and I think I've done a good job of being objective in my writing. I'm hardly a Mormon propogandist: I was excommunicated years ago for being gay. Go find someone else to piss on. --Coryarlo 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friday

Tinosa, as there's currently a bit of a silly edit war going on over the word "Friday" in the lead at Mountain Meadows massacre, I'd ask you to join the discussion over there instead of joining the edit war. Surely the article isn't going to be materially harmed by the inclusion or omission of the word while we try to sort it out on the talk page, right? Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre

I read your comments on my talk page and do not quite understand your concerns about this article. I prefer to discuss the problems you see with the article on that talk page rather than on my talk page. If you want to discuss it further, please do it there. --Robbie Giles 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paiute participation in the MMM

I have proposed a compromise to the opening paragraph of the Mountain Meadows massacre which may address some of your concerns about Native American involvement in the massacre. Please view it here and join the discussion. Thanks in advance. --Robbie Giles 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day of the week and the Mountain Meadows massacre

I have proposed a change to the MMM introduction which deletes the mention of the weekday of the killings. I note you made the most recent change to include the day, and invite you to join the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Robbie Giles 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Rescue of the Mountain Meadows Infants and Early Investigations

A tag has been placed on Rescue of the Mountain Meadows Infants and Early Investigations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on Rescue of the Mountain Meadows Infants and Early Investigations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JASpencer (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment on Rescue of the Mountain Meadows Infants and Early Investigations

Usually if you are going to build a page gradually, it is best to do so in userspace and then move it to mainspace when you feel it is complete. You can start an article here: User:Tinosa/Rescue of the Mountain Meadows Infants and Early Investigations. Also, if you wish to make such comments in the future, it is best to do so on the article talk page. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree with you

Hi, I agree with your judgement about the too many "citation needed", on matters of little importance. Most biographies do not have citations at every corner. If somebody like Will is published by major newspapers and universities, the rest is peripheral. Adrian Comollo (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver City

Just wanted to explain: the reason that I've sought to have the Silver City, Idaho map placed on the right side is that the right side is the standard place for maps. Digging into the history, look at any US municipality (outside of New England|]] and you'll see that maps are virtually always right-aligned. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no problem adhering to a WIKI-std but SHO-ME please"? Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)