User talk:Hondo77

Heart (band)

Gee I'm glad you did that. Thanks. I just looked at it and groaned, and thought: "I can't be bothered getting into an endless WP:Wonk discussion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Buffett's religion

Hi. You may have something useful to say at Talk:Warren_Buffett#Views on religion, and I hope you find the new paragraph I added useful. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Nikki Dial. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. WP:BLP requires that controversial claims require reliable secondary sources. Escort sites are primary sources and are notoriously unreliable because they use the bait and switch method to attract clients. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notoriously unreliable"? Do you have a reference for that? Anyway, what controversial claim was made? The entry merely stated that Dial was listed on the site and gave some examples of the rates listed, complete with references. What is controversial about that? Hondo77 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References of the old bait and switch tactic [1][2][3]. What's controversial is implying that Nikki was an escort for that site. You are disregarding WP:WELLKNOWN by relying on the escort site itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Chloe Vevrier. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree and assert that you are wrong. The site claims that both women were escorts for the site and that is all that my additions state. No interpretation of those facts was made nor was there any implication. I was just stating that the site listed both women as escorts bookable through the site. Now, you may dispute that they actually were bookable through the site but the references I cited say otherwise. Regarding your references, it's apples and oranges. The site wasn't using anonymous pictures. The pictures matched the names of these people. As for my additions being libelous, I point out, again, that all it states is that the women were listed on the site as being escorts. That is what the listings say. Furthermore, the additions never say any more than "companion" nor imply any more. To claim that calling a hardcore porn star a "companion" (not "prostitute") is libelous is laughable.

WP:BLP clearly states, "If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Your use of a questionable primary source like NYCFantasies.com to assert facts that are not supported by any reliable secondary source is unacceptable, and I will continue to remove such assertions on sight. The person who adds or restores this material has the burden of proving it complies with wikipedia policy. If you wish to complain about this issue, post the issue at the BLP Noticeboard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 16, 2008

Thank you for fixing the release date and publisher. I looked wrong, it said Bantam Books and the release date is the 29th of next month. Thank you for you editing!

MHLU (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Hondo77 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Severance

Thank you! Most people just leave me messages to complain or cuss me out so thanks! :) Pinkadelica (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About our Impellitteri discussion. (I'm finally getting the hang of Wikipedia's editing system, I had no idea how to do this earlier.)

What's this? Wiki's a reputable source.

"Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Also I'd like to bring up the following. "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

Obviously my edit brings about a better understanding and furthermore neutral assessment of Impellitteri's status according to definition and as such my lack of proper knowledge to how to insert a reference does not discredit this. But all in all you were just Wik-lawyering it seems and could have told me about the warnings and how to access them a lot earlier. >_>

And of course, you forgot to assume good faith. To insinuate that my work was vandalism when my intent was to improve the article not maliciously destroy it is ridiculous is rather heinous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

And I do apologize for essentially forcing you into being the aggressor in said edit war due to my previous inability to discuss these points with you on a talk page. That I'll take responsibility for but your hammering the point to somebody who obviously didn't understand the innerworkings of Wiki and had the intent of improving the article is fairly ludicrous regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.43.250 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Weigel

Someone's birthdate, weight, marriage, schooling and cosmetic surgery are personal details which shouldn't be included unless widely published. An allegation that Playboy tried to interfere in her post-Playmate career could lead to libel claims. Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. Epbr123 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her birthdate and weight can easily be referenced from her Playmate data sheet. Marriage and boob job(s) are easy, too, AND their not contentious. The only thing on that list that is contentious is the Playboy allegation. Yes, that should go. The rest are not contentious and should be given a chance to be verified. Hondo77 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Weigel

I have removed material from Teri Weigel that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but the content you removed had two references. You only removed one, leaving one perfectly good reference. A "reliable citation" already existed, had you bothered to look carefully. Hondo77 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have questions about what you removed Hondo, which was cited material about where she was born and where she grew up, one of which was her own official website. Tabercil (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me part 2 but I haven't been removing content, I have been restoring it (with fact tags when necessary). Please show me the revision where I removed content. Hondo77 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Looks like I did inadvertently remove stuff while restoring other stuff. Good catch. Sorry 'bout that. Hondo77 (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Hathaway "Supervoting"/"Nonvoting"

Hello,

I tried to make an edit to the Berkshire Hathaway article a couple of weeks ago. I changed the description of the two different share classes in the opening sentence from "supervoting" and "nonvoting" to simply "Class A" and "Class B". I made this change because "nonvoting" seems like a misleading term to use for a class of shares that does, in fact, get to vote. I came back just now to see that you had reverted my edit, with a comment stating that you vote for your Class B shares every year. So do I. :-)

Anyway, I'm just curious why you did that. Is "nonvoting" a technical term for "gets to vote, but less in proportion to its economic interest" that I wasn't aware of before, or did you misinterpret the reason for the edit, or something else entirely? Etphonehome (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Soprano

Could you notify the deleting admin? Dloh cierekim 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTRS#Disagreeing_with_a_team-related_edit] Dloh cierekim 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hondo77. You have new messages at Dlohcierekim's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Careful with that thing

Please be careful when reverting. To me, this is clearly not vandalism. Maybe you can explain what problem(s) you have with that edit on the article's talk page? WRT your edit summary, you might want to consider WP:ATWV. Paradoctor (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Somebody who is not me got my work IP address blocked.

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hondo77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Iamvagabond". The reason given for Iamvagabond's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. What can I do now? If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".

Blocking administrator: Anna Frodesiak (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Okay - should be cleared. Kuru (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madera Municipal Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Corps of Engineers. 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) 11:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Jackson

MY EDIT simply mirrors the EXISTING, UNCHALLENGED TEXT on the Wikipedia page for Fletcher R. Jones, WP page Fletcher Jones (American entrepreneur).

"Five months after Jones' death, actress Sherry Jackson, who had lived with him from 1967 until his death, sued his estate for palimony. Jackson's suit asked for more than $1 million ($5.8 million today), with her attorneys stating that Jones had promised to provide her with at least $25,000 a year for the rest of her life.[4] The lawsuit was unsuccessful.[5]"

The reference used is the SAME REFERENCE used on that page. Regarding your ERRONEOUS statement that "Ref doesn't have the words "lawsuit", "law", or "palimony" in it, nor does it mention the lawsuit at all." if you look at the Reference (https://marriedbiography.com/sherry-jackson-biography/) under the heading "Sherry Jackson's Rumors, Controversy":

"After five months of Fletcher R. Jones's death, Jackson filed SUIT against his estate asking for more than $1 million. She stated that Jones had promised to provide her with at least $25,000 a year for the rest of her life. However, the LITIGATION proved to be unsuccessful. Many people criticized her for filing suit against her former partner."

"Palimony" is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. The term palimony is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony that has come into acceptable usage.

Do you need me to define the words "suit" and "litigation"? And if you have such a problem with my edit, WHY haven't you changed the Fletcher Jones page to reflect your particular worldview? I don't know why you feel so proprietary about the Sherry Jackson page, but your actions and logic are inconsistent. I don't know if you're trying to start an Edit War, but your repeated reversion of an edit accepted elsewhere certainly smacks of one. Would you care to explain? Gil gosseyn (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see "suit" further down on the page but it doesn't really matter. It also doesn't matter what is on Fletcher Jones's page because that is not what is being discussed. The ref you put on Sherry Jackson's page is not reliable, per WP:BLPSPS. The page for the biography of a living person (WP:BLP) has higher standards than a regular Wikipedia page and MarriedBiography.com does not meet those standards, especially under the article's "Rumors" section. However, I do thank you for pointing out the poorly-referenced statement on Fletcher Jones's page. The passage you refer to has now been removed for the same reason. Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a more reliable source. Hondo77 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your contention? Are you saying the suit DIDN'T fail?

Gil gosseyn (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is one of the External Resources

According to the entry on Sherry Jackson, IMDB is one of the external resources. The names of her parents are also given in the first paragraph of the entry but there's no citation. The only source where I found their names is the same IMDB entry. Paenggoy (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Roy Zimmerman (American football), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of "Woods"

Hello Hondo77. I see that you reverted this edit on 1976 Chowchilla kidnapping which changed the plural of "Woods" from "Woods" to "Woodses". I read your link but I didn't see anywhere where it asserted what the plural of "Woods" is. Could you point me in the right direction? Rublov (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you're right. I mis-read the #7 entry for "English" as being for Woods. I found a better explanation. I'll revert my reversion with that explanation. Thanks! Hondo77 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful music -- un-gutted some good info

Hello! Today, I have tried to fix Beautiful music article, which was "gutted" in 2011. I also added some really basic life hacks, aimed at older generation. I tried to make the article informative for ... well, boomers, who would unironically love some retro music. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small probem, however. I don't know how to make big lists ... collapsible. I can hide Wikipedia page text, but I don't know how to make it minimized. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wendy Aylsworth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wendy Aylsworth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Aylsworth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wendy Aylsworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Rescuers Down Under. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Indagate (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]