Talk archives
February — June 2006 July — August 2006 September 2006 — November 2006 December 2006 January — April 2007 May 2007 — November 2007 December 2007 — December 2008
Did You Know acceptances
December 2006 —
Hey ... I got some Barnstars!
User:Moeron/Barnstars

Dear Moeron, thank you so much for the welcome! I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time and have decided to finally start editing! Thanks for welcoming me! I've been reading the intro guides and how to write articles. Do you have any suggestions? Basket of Puppies (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your interests? When I first started at Wikipedia, I worked on pages for bands that I enjoy as well as creating album pages. Pick something you have a passion for and start looking for articles; just be sure that when adding material to adhere to a neutral point of view, using reliable sources when adding specific information. If you don't have a particular interest, hit the link to the left that says Random article and see how you can help that page. Sometimes, when I get a bit lethargic, I will click Random article and find a page to improve. Again, welcome! ... if you have any more questions feel free to ask me or to put {{helpme}} on your page and someone should be around to help. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the hints, Moeron! Say, I alread have a question. I saw this thing for a service called Twinkle. I tried to install it but I don't notice anything different. Am I too new to use it yet? Also, at what point will I be able to edit without having to type in the confirmation code? And also how do I get a custom signature like yours? Basket of Puppies (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Twinkle is a user script that helps people revert WP:VANDALISM. While wanting to help with such a task is commendable, I highly recommend you try some basic article editing, basically to get a feel of policy and procedures.
2. You pretty much just created your account name, right? If that is the case, you may either have to confirm the account (through your email) or it might just go away after some editing. I have been around for awhile, so I don't recall that additional deterrence.
3. Finally, for changing your signatures, I guess it would be best to visit WP:SIG, in particular the section called Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing your signature. That will explain where you change it and give some suggestions.

Anything else, just let me know. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Moeron! You've been incredibly helpful. I've been reading a lot of the policies and guides. I hope in a few weeks I'll start being able to contribute to both the content and integrity of this encyclopedia. I am really thrilled to be editing and thank you for the welcome! Basket of Puppies 01:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Supernatural Role Playing Game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The article is one year old now, but the game has still not been released. It seems that this look into the crystal ball was unsuccessful.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you tell me why you have not accepted the updated biography I put on Mark Wigglesworth. The one you have reverted to has used unreliable sources and I would prefer the fuller biography that was written on January 8.

Thanks, Mark --MarkWigglesworth (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reinserted some information that you removed; please state on the talk page for the article why these are unreliable and then these may be removed. You also removed a number of necessary items, such as the successor box, and changed reference templates; for this reason, it was reverted. BTW, are you a fan or actually the person in the article? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologise for having left some important technical aspects out of the edit. My computer skills are limited so I am grateful for your corrections in that regard.

I have two questions. Have you left out things that you have not been able to find citations for? If this is the case I can easily get those to you, especially if you could give me a better idea of what is considered a reliable source. I find it surprising that Wikipedia seems to value newspaper articles more than other aspects of the publishing media. If that is the case, of course I have to respect that, but I would have thought that there were other more trustworthy sources. It is a frightening world where we follow the 'it must be true, I read it in the papers' philosophy! Is 'Who's Who' considered acceptable, I wonder?

I feel an obligation to some of the orchestras, and operas, that you have omitted. I appreciate that it might be considered boring to read the list but Wikipedia is nothing if not extensive! Incidentally we should omit the double reference to the Kondrashin competition. My role with the BBC Symphony Orchestra also gets a repetition which, despite its different context, might be a waste of space

The unreliable source that is cited is No 14 from Shirley Apthorpe. This article was based on interviews that do not give both sides of the story. The specific matter at La Monnaie that she refers to is at present legally sensitive and so I cannot make any comment but until these issues are resolved, I think it is better to omit this reference. Once the situation is sorted out I would be happy to point you towards an appropriate citation.

I appreciate the opportunity to have this correspondence and look forward to hearing from you.

Mark Wigglesworth (MarkWigglesworth (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Okay, first off, you may want to read our guideline on "conflicts of interest" on articles; editing an article about yourself is highly frowned upon because it goes against one of our five pillars, that of always providing a neutral point of view. When I re-added your material, the only deletion I made of your material is limiting some of the orchestras you listed. Wikipedia may strive for being extensive, but it isn't a collection of all information. I suggest just highlighting three of the most important "things" (in this case orchestras), perhaps through citations, but not all of them. You say you have an obligation to these orchestras, so therefore they should appear on your page, but again, this goes back to being a conflict of interest.
• As for the unreliable source you mention, it is from a reputable publication and the sentence in the article comes from news, not commentary. Therefore, I don't see a reason why it should not stay. I would accept a following sentence that presents the other side of the story if you could provide a reliable source for it.
• I hope that may answer some questions you have about the edits to this page. I am going to copy/paste this over to the articles talk page so it can continue there. I will also direct some WikiProjects there so others can weight in on the discussion. If you have any other technical questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I appreciate the conflicts of issue but am happy that the version as it is now is a bit more detailed than it was. Do you want to edit out the double reference to the Kondrashin competition or shall I? (It might be a smoother process if you could do it!)

As to the issue of the unreliable source, the problem is that the people who would put the other side of the story are at the moment honouring the confidentiality agreement that was put in place. It seems strange that something that is untrue should have to stay in the article simply because of a lack of evidence, but when and where that is forthcoming, I'll let you know.

Unless you've already done so, don't worry about posting this correspondence elsewhere. I'm happy to leave things as they are - especially now that I understand a bit more about the philosophies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Mark (MarkWigglesworth (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can you offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Just letting you know that we have nominated Dragonlance to be a Good Article, and it is currently up for review. :) BOZ (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently reverted your deletion of an External Link at Human Evolution, and wanted to explain in order to avoid misunderstandings. I also patrol EL additions and delete those that don't meet the EL guidelines, especially commercial links. However, I reviewed the link that (Suki?) added to this article, and it seemed to fit very well and enhance the article; in other words, I think it was properly compliant with guidelines and a useful addition, that's why I restored it. Apparently the same editor may have added the same link to other articles as well, as indicated by your edit summary. I haven't reviewed those and have no idea whether or not they belong; it was only the link at Human Evolution that I reviewed. If you feel I'm mistaken I'll be happy to discuss this further either here, my talkpage, or the article's talkpage, whatever you think appropriate. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moreon,

I've noticed that you have recently visited the Dread Zeppelin page and added an alert for more citation/references. I am actually the creator, original guitarist and producer of the band. I have not been with them since 1995, but am very interested in having the TRUE history of the band recorded on Wikipedia. I am in process of rewriting the entire page using as many references and inclusions from other original members as I can.

My problem is that someone going by the name Billraheb keeps editing the page with misinformation designed to be complimentary to the current group. My edits leave the current band information alone, but I did edit the parts that had to do with my version of Dread Zeppelin (which also happens to be the time spent on major record labels that most fans know).

I also wrote to Billraheb on his talk page and asked him not to remove links to legitimate CD and record releases and to, essentially, stop trying to re-write history, but I have a feeling my work will be removed again.

What can I do to stop this? How can I get the real story up and for it to stay?

Thank you for any help you can give me.

Alkarpus (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My work has been removed again despite adding several sources (they have been removed, too). This time, the user's name is "Cleanserman" although I'm pretty sure that it's the same person as as they have made the exact same edits. Probably trying to avoid the three undo rule.

PLEASE let me know what I can do to stop this.

Cleanserman??? That's a bit creepy, isn't it?

- Alkarpus (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed my FACTS from Winback - I will be reporting your vandalism--your wrong 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel Universe 11 (talk • contribs)

Your facts may not be wrong, but what you wrote was already covered in the very first paragraph of the article. Hence, your edit was redundant and brought no new relevant information to the Winback article. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Nice to see a watchfull eye ;) --Frankie0607 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note to let you know I've removed your CSD tag (A7) from Respond2 Cmedia. You may want to go back and take another look at the merits of the article. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moeron,

I saw that you had flagged my post on Matt Gibson for deletion. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia. I found the guidelines regarding notability a bit vague.

Matt Gibson and his magazine, Xpat (which I'm also writing an entry for) was quite well known when I lived in Taiwan (although I'm not sure about now. Kind of a minor celebrity in the foreign community.

I've read many other entries that seemed to be less notable than these. I guess my question is, what kind of citations would be required to show the notability of this person and his magazine?

Thanks very much for your help.

Cheers, Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Mirionuck (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moeron--

While I agree that the block of material to Fitzhugh's entry, regarding his major work "Sociology for the South", was a bit bulky, by the same token calling it "fluff" and reverting to the original (a mere six sentences) throws a hospital's worth of babies out with the bathwater. Fitzhugh's thinking is substantially more nuanced than the entry previously contained, and is of much greater interest to students of American political thought than most (or all) other defenders of slavery. Perhaps the better solution would have been the harder row to hoe: to improve the added material through judicious edits. It needed a scalpel, or maybe a butcher's knife, but not a chainsaw. Pdwschmidt (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moeron, hope you don't mind but I've downgraded this speedy to a notability tag as I take appearing on TV and in film as an assertion of importance or significance. and someone else has now notched it back up to a prod.. ϢereSpielChequers 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the deletion log? This looks like someone has been trying to add this person multiple times. Also, there is only one entry for this person as a unnamed nurse in one movie. I have seconded the prod and hopefully it will be deleted soon-ish. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]