User talk:Mosmof/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mosmof. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm wondering about your change adding the "weasel words" and "peacock term" templates. There are four different references on that sentence alone and they all clearly state the same thing - that not only do the authors consider Gait to be one of the best, if not the best, but many other share that opinion. The weasel words template says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I think there is plenty of attribution already. I suppose the "best player of all time" could be reworded, but all four of those references specifically state that opinion. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, the rest of the paragraph does nothing to support te "widely believed" claim. Sure, "it's supported by the cites, but it's sort of synthesis/original research to take those sources to say, "See, based on these sources I've collected, it's obvious he's widely considered to be the best." The reason we try to avoid "widely believed" and the like is because to the uninitiated, it's pretty meaningless. It's much more preferable to talk about awards or hall of fame inductions or even quote an authority figure. --Mosmof (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You sure this is Patrick Patterson? This is an image of Patterson from NBA.com. Zagalejo^^^ 06:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The photos you are deleting from Olympic Games scandals and controversies all contain the same copyright notification:

"This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."

There is a clear rationale. They are significant historical events. The exact same historical event that cleared them for usage on their individual articles associated with the same involved individuals for the same reason; because they were Olympic Controversies. Deleting them from one place for a proper associated usage . . . an incident that happened before millions at the Olympics . . . but allowing them in another makes no sense. This is not an "other" usage, it is the same usage categorized from the opposite perspective (where it happened).

I see your history of deleting photographs from many articles based on WP copyright policies. Destructive as your work is, I can't argue with the legal points most of the time. In this case however, the policy you are following is playing games with semantics. There will never be an improvement in the copyright paperwork for these images and you know it. If there is an issue with some phrase in the wikipedia application to use the image, you as the expert, are far better qualified to FIX the clearance issue within the wikipedia system (however that is done) rather than to find excuses to damage public content.

I'm rolling it all back. Trackinfo (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:NFCC - there's a reason Wikipedia has a strict application of copyright laws, especially when it comes to using non-free images. These images do not have proper rationales attached, and as a list-like article, it's inappropriate to include non-free images here. I'm going to go ahead and remove the images again - please don't reinsert them without providing proper rationales. 17:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

...Hedgefall —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Tysons, Virginia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 ^talk 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kars4Kids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Grimm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mosmof, be well. I wonder if it is possible to move the entry Ahmadiyya Muslim Community-Jewish relations to a shorter and better searchable 'name' ? I may suggest Ahmadiyya - Jewish Relations or even Ahmadiyya and Judaism or anything brief and easily remembered ? sincerely . --Gam zu l'tovah (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? I have no expertise on the subject and I have no idea what the standard format is, or whether there's any consequence to dropping the "Muslim". Mosmof (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindly response. Ahmadiyya, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Ahmadi or Ahmadiyya Movement, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at all the same. Using the briefer term and making the heading short and direct would do good and improve the Article. Gam zu l'tovah (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your suggestions. The reason I broke down the page is that there is way too much going on with Elie's recent art aquisitions and real estate transactions, that I felt they need separate sections so it would be easier to contribute/edit. Please do not roll "controversy" under "Personal" section as most of this is under the development and papers are styill in front of the judge. Once this case is resolved, we will have a better idea where to file it. Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyakushev (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 May 2013‎

On 29 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New York City FC, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Major League Soccer franchise New York City FC is co-owned by Manchester City FC and the New York Yankees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New York City FC. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Zagalejo^^^ 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Paterno may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Paterno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Common Pleas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% correct so my apologies. As per Tello, he's a first team player but does not have a first team number (in Spain, all first team players are number 1-25). Can we change that now or does the July rule also apply? La Fuzion (K lo K) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no big deal. I'm not sure how to deal with Tello, since he did make first team appearances even though he wasn't listed as a first-team member. Mosmof (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Romneycare.jpg + File:Obamacare.jpg Since I can't tell if their respective talk pages are the right places to bring it up, and I'm not sure where else to ask, I figured I'd ask you if there's any way, given appropriate attribution, the images can be used under fair use given the relevance to the page (such as 'historical importance')? And/or where/how acceptable images can be sourced? This was a mistake out of ignorance but it'd be a shame if there's not some way to preserve relevant image contact. Thank you Sb101 (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are those photos from the federal government and therefore in the public domain? In any case, I'm not very impressed, Mosmof, that you didn't try to be gentle with a new user and instead went the easy route of a quick template that looked all scary with a bolded block warning. It's no wonder Wikipedia active editors keep declining. II | (t - c) 02:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

They were both agency photos - one was a Getty Images photo and the other was an AP photo. I think we would have had a hard time arguing that they were acceptable non-free images because of WP:NFCC#2, and for an image to be considered historic, it can't just be one that shows an important event - the photo itself has to be iconic, and I don't think we could make a good argument for that.

II, I'm all for civility and gently guiding new users, and I'm happy to inform users who have questions (and I have no intention of scaring away new users), but those particular images were obviously copyrighted photos. I didn't mean for the tags to be big and scary, but I don't think the speedy delete was unjustified. Mosmof (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The template is a little overly blunt in my opinion, so don't take it personal. I usually follow-up a template with a short personal comment afterwards. It's more work but I think it is worth it. II | (t - c) 05:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, some of the content you've added to Hull City A.F.C. isn't covered by the reference you've used. For instance, The Guardian do not explicitly mention the club being re-registered as 'Hull City Tigers Ltd'. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I added the Daily Mail link as source for re-registration. Is there anything else that needs citing? --Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colette Carr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)