User talk:Moogwrench/Archive 1

Birnbaum article

Hi - hope you don't mind I threw in a few things on your new article. KConWiki (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks alot! I need all the help I can get! Moogwrench (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to refer me to edit warring when you have changed the edits back just as often as I have. Hypocrite. No wonder you support the coup and the golpistas. (Finrevs (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

edits to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Thanks for your work. Just a comment: For right now, I think that most edits to the umbrella "constitutional crisis" article should be focused on trimming. Substantive additions should probably go to the sub-articles (at least, they should go there first; and hopefully, only there, as they can be included in trimmed summaries on the umbrella page). Homunq (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reflinks toolserver

When creating or editing articles where templates arent in use may I suggest using the Reflinks toolserver. I suggest that you don't just take the results given verbatim, but make corrections to clean them up. The results need some manual help; sometimes author names and dates don't get added, and links to publishers are to the website which is not really useful, so link to the wiki article if one exists, sometimes the title is way too long including parent section names that can be removed, etc.

I also found and use an edit counter on my page which shows the main articles edited etc. and graphs them, Just passing on what other people have told meCathar11 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Election Returns

There is no error in the AFP report. Hagamos Democracia conducted exit polls which agree with the lower figure.

The the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so. Since this was an arbitrary figure that cant stand up to scrutiny they will have to use a similar basis to earlier elections.

In 2005 the TSE website said 2,190,398 people voted, from an electoral roll of 3,976,550 voters. According to Hagamos Democracia, 2,162,000 voted in 2009 from an electoral roll of 4.6 million. That's approximately 28,000 fewer people voting than voted in 2005, while the electoral roll increased by some 600,000 persons. The size of the electoral roll was supplied to Hagamos Democracia by the TSE prior to the election, and was the same number supplied to the press.

The initial 60% was disengeous to say the least, knowing the attention span of international audiences.Cathar11 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Its simple maths TSE changed what it was a % of by adjusting arbitrarily the figure.

Hagamos Democracia was accredited by the TSE as election observers. They are an NGO, funded by various governments, including the United States.

Their methodology was to select a sample of 1173 mesas electorales from around the country based on criteria like their history of participation in previous elections and other criteria. In each of these mesas electorales, they established an observer who was present the whole time, from the time the polling place opened until it closed, and did not visit other mesas electorales as many election observers do. After the polling place closed, their election observer sent them the statistics from that mesa, including the tallied vote counts, and participation from the official "actas" that the TSE has reported to it to tally. Their observers also send in their own statistics gathered from their observations during the day.

Hagamos Democracia told Tiempo that the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so.

The TSE has obviously decided to abandon its arbitrary electoral roll (which dissapears 600,000 voters?).Cathar11 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know the count isnt finished but its now 85/90% complete. I dont know why there not updating their wensite. If you note that on it they show the Hagamos Democracia % which are in line with theirprojections and note that all the figures agree with the exception of participation. The cpmfidence level on that is 99+% with a 1% margin of error. Whether it has anything to with the 6.5% spoiled vote rate or not I dont know. Final results may take weeks so well just have to wait and see.Cathar11 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Law Library of Congress report

Why dont you put details of the report now that its in HTML into the Honduran Coup d'etat article as counter balance and I'll add details of the specific weaknesses of the report into the critism. section.

Sure, or we could switch roles. ;-) I think that there is valid criticism of the LLoC report, but I did add a little bit noting the more recent decree which gave the power to Congress to interpret the constitution in Article 205(10) after the ruling against the Congress's logic vis-a-vis Article 218(9) and 205(1). So I think the critics of the LLoC report might be out on a limb, depending on an older ruling, instead of the newer, ratified change to the Constitution which established a right on the part of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. Moogwrench (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Try it again and we go to ANI

Only post where you're allowed. -- Rico 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't post in the middle of my posts, and don't insert posts into the middle of threads where they're not allowed.

You may not insert a post in between a post and its reply by adding another colon, and you mayn't insert your posts into the posts of other posters, ever. -- Rico 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, your last edit to that was at 3:06 after my original reply at 3:03, and so I replied again at 3:17. Why did you move it? Moogwrench (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You really don't understand it, or are you playing dumb? Lo0ok at ALL the time and date stamps. You trieed to slip in a post, in the middle of a thread, in between a post and its reply.[1] -- Rico 04:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let review those stamps:

3:03 I respond to your 2:59 comment [2]
3:05 you change your 2:59 comment [3]
3:17 I reply to your changed 3:05 comment [4]

What is confusing and why I am I wrong to reply to a comment again after it was finished? (even though you didn't update the stamp) Moogwrench (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change only to clarify a vague reference. It wasn't clear that "that", referred to, "your supposed newness." My minor edit didn't change the meaning of what I had written in any way -- because I had already written about your supposed newness (in that same post) when I wrote, "newbie you supposedly were." My edit was purely a minor grammatical one for enhanced readability.

One thing you could have done might have been to have changed your reply, if you honestly thought I'd written something new. You're obviously familiar with strikeout formatting.

However, I hadn't changed the meaning of anything I'd written in any way.

Regardless, you may not insert a post in between a post with four colons, and a reply with five colons, just because you want to.

It's just that simple.

I'm not going to discuss it ad nauseum, especially if you're going to ignore the obvious. I'd rather just go to AN/I. I'm ready.

As far as I'm concerned, we can just move this discussion to AN/I. You can develop your defense there.

I reserve the right to do that in response to your next reply, especially if you ignore that a six-colon reply doesn't get inserted in between a four-colon post and a five-colon reply.

I consider you a thoroughly disruptive editor, and I'm not going to spend all day providing you with stimulation you can't or won't go out and get in the real world. -- Rico 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, do what you like. You stopped discussing it with me, and I suppose now an administrator can look at the situation. That is fine by me. Moogwrench (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now at AN

Hello, Moogwrench. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For my own records, the link is here for now, until it is archived. Moogwrench (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran coup d'état

In a single sentence, was the entire dispute about whether the coup was part of the larger constitutional crisis or just a separate incident? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The current dispute was over whether the "coup" was part of a larger "constitutional crisis" or the totality of the "constitutional crisis." Moogwrench (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good night for tonight, must sleep... Moogwrench (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

I am concerned that User:Alb28 has seriously screwed up the article. As the only other changes are a POV aout landing at a US air base (which also doubles as a US airbase) what do you Think? PS Rico has retired from Wikipedia so youre now in discussion with yourselfCathar11 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I was planning to do was a roll back to before his edits. Iyou make an edit after my roll back it cannot be undone. Then any changes made can be discussed on a point by point basis. Is that reasonable. The points hes raising are spurious IMHO and arbitrary. I dont think they merit individual changing at this stage and i consider them tantamount to vandalism of the article.Cathar11 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please make an edit to lock the roll back I deleted some of your edits too.Cathar11 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Im afraida mass revert wouldnt stand up to an rfc. Yhis guy has been here before under another name and hacked up the article. I recognise his style. Hit and run job. will just have to take apart hisedits in stages and rewording.Cathar11 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats this africanised bee thing with a photoshoped picture?Cathar11 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious content

Our friend has also created three pages with very dubious content. Both of which breach BLP guidelines. Marcelo Chimirri David Romero Ellner and Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration

I think we need to get an admin to look at them and indeed all his posting. He seems to be a loose cannon. Its not just my viewpoint is it?Cathar11 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea hes an admin.Cathar11 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the right place to report it WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and somebody there posted it to WP:ANI#User:Alb28 goodnightCathar11 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast a cold eye

Our friend is learning wiki lawyering fast for a newbie. see ANI Cathar11 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we are politically polar opposites, but act with integrity, will you have a look and comment on any recent deletions or reversions thatI have madeCathar11 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request

Rollback granted: you're right that the tool is not for reverting edits you disagree with nor to revert-war, and that the tool can be removed if misused (note that some admins don't even bother to warn editors about rollback errors). This all being said, rollback is very useful for reverting vandalism and spam, and does make things much easier. Have fun with your new tool! Acalamari 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Rollback

Ive just installed twinkle, Where did yourequest rollback permission?Cathar11 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi there Moogwrench, I'm not familiar with the dispute nor its subject so I'm not able to speak from an expert point of view on this matter, but I'm not sure canvassing is a huge thing to worry about in this case. The editor who was contacted recently posted to the talk page of the dispute ([5]), so I assume they are already aware of what's going on. That being said, if the editor who posted the message starts to contact users who aren't involved with the dispute to get support, my suggestion would be to talk to the editor to get them to stop, and if they persist, post to WP:ANI (you'll get better, faster, and more input if you post there rather than contact an individual admin for help on matters like that). Hope that helps. Best. Acalamari 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I am unfamiliar with some american terms. In the UK and Ireland a news columnist is another term for a reporter. Opinion pieces are normally diferent. An editorial is always an opinion piece. From my understanding Primary sources such as court records are not useable in wp. Do you have any thoughts?Cathar11 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

San Juan High School

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of San Juan High School, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.softcom.net/users/whiskeystill/SJhistory.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For anybody's information, this bot is confused, because the text is derived from information taken directly from San Juan High School's website. Moogwrench (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you write the text at the website, then? It appears that most of the "history" section of the article is copy-pasted from there. Sorry, but I've reported this at WP:CP (see here). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact remains that your text is strikingly similar to the text on that website. I've left the copyvio tag, but that doesn't mean the article must be deleted. I think what follows is the best advice for you regarding this article; it's from this template.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:San Juan High School and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, San Juan High School, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:San Juan High School with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:San Juan High School. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:San Juan High School saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thanks for your patience. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you cannot do that. This website is very explicitly copyrighted by the San Juan Unified School District. You have to rewrite the "history" section in your own words, and you may cite the SJUSD page as a reference. You can take information from the page, but you cannot lift text from it. Actually, it looks like the softcom page is infringing copyright as well, but Wikipedia is exceptionally stringent in upholding its copyright policies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for fixing that stupid font stuff on my talk page! That was starting to bug me... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please edit responsibly . . .

I think I've waited long enough for you to remove that tag. Please take care of this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Happy Christmas

I hope you have a great Christmas and wish you and your family all the best for 2010. Maybe it will be the year you will head south to H. I hope its warmer where you are than here where its now -5. Nollaig Shona Dhuit(Happy Xmas in Irish)Cathar11 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Constitutional Crisis

Background I do think that these need to be noted: (1) political nature of the Supreme Court. (2) political nature of the media and concentration of ownership. (this was in it before and is mentioned in Human Rights invedstigations) What do you think? Would a table of Human rights violations be a useful addition? I was amused that the "stone " article of the constitution was ammended to alllow Santos run for the Presidency.;)Cathar11 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

New article patrolling

I came across a bot assembled list on this page [6] whch may be of interest.Cathar11 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Diana Panton

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Diana Panton, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Hey there Moogwrench, just wanted to first say how much your recent changes patrolling is appreciated. I just wanted to clarify something for the future regarding reporting to AIV. While you are indeed correct that repeated vandalism does not reflect well the intentions of a Wikipedia editor, there are several ways to classify the disruption. When the vandal is an actual registered account of the English Wikipedia, it is considered a vandalism-only account. When the vandal is an IP address, this classification is incorrect and we have to be a bit more stringent regarding adequate warnings. Once again though, its very kind of you to devote your time, revert the vandalism, and bring such editors to our attention. See you around.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change articles

Thanks for raising the question of the ICO's statement, I've commented on your request for an explanation with reasons for reviewing your wording. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation applies to a range of articles including Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, which is specifically placed under a 1RR restriction. The standard notice appears below. Glad to have your assistance in improving the article, dave souza, talk 09:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Climategate Coup

Moogwrench, for a bit of fun I thought I'd see if the Kremlin green guard in Wikipedia were being kept busy enough to stop them doing any serious harm in the real world, when I spotted your comments about "Coup" - very good! But please don't try too hard to get the article changed, because it is one of the ways to flag up to members of the public that the content is going to be extremely biased.88.109.200.48 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I know that you are arguing in favor of Climategate, which I have also done in the past, but in an effort to find a compromise position that both sides can live with please consider signing on to this proposal. We have a reasonable number of editors already on board so I am hoping we can get others such as yourself to come on board as well. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yourself...

...but I think I'll be going back on wikibreak now. Cheers. Homunq (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Climategate

You seem to be beating a bit of a dead horse over there. Consensus is not decided by whoever is most willing to continue expending verbiage over an issue after all the points have been made. Continually raising the same points is disruptive. Additionally, this is a touch on the rude side. Maintaining a collegial atmosphere will hopefully help that article develop peacefully. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a little curious... what did you exactly find rude about suggesting that those that tire of discussion might enjoy a wikibreak? Note that the verbiage of the statement was not directed at any particular editor. I certainly feel refreshed after leaving Wikipedia for a few days or even a week, and I personally think that quite a few of the regulars on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident page on both sides of any particular debate could probably use some time off the article and its talk. Also, I might be less inclined to raise similar points occasionally were it not for 2 things: there is a high volume of Interested People coming and going constantly AND the archive rate for the talk is every two days, meaning that it is very easy for someone who is not a wikiholic to miss cogent arguments due to anything more than a very short break from the talk page of the article. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is good advice (at least, I feel refreshed when I ignore the interminable arguments for a few days), but it is very easy for it to feel condescending even when well-intentioned. Sometimes it helps me to (completely in my head, of course) think of everyone else as drunk and on the verge of an irrational outburst and guaranteed to take every comment in the worst possible way. It is a depressingly accurate model at times.

At any rate, you make a very good point about the rapid archiving and need for input from more than just the usual suspects. The talkpage is over 60 kb with the two day archiving, but feel free to propose (in text or in boldness) bumping the frequency down a bit if you think it would help. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on talk page

Please stop commenting in the proposed move area and keep your comments separated. We are trying to measure consensus without editors distracting from the discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do, however, it does make continuity as far as post-specific replies rather hard to follow. Limiting the support/oppose section that way takes away from discussion and leads towards voting, not !voting. Moogwrench (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it improves discussion. Once you separate the supports and opposes, you can focus on discussing the finer points in the comments section. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree but that's okay. Moogwrench (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Ive been very busy in the real world so havent had much time for wiki. I agree withwhat you say about the Zelaya drugs quote but feel it should be put in context with his exasparation with US policy. The article needs cleaning up to remove the partisan politics interjected now that the situation is cooling. Maybe still too soon for that.Cathar11 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea of a sndbox is good. We need to identify the salient points and put them down as headers and transfer relevant content in whether we agree or not with such content. This really applies to all pages related to the Honduras fiasco/farce. How are your plans progressing for going thereto live? Reading aout it from Ireland would make me want to visit it. Mind you the politicans there of all shapes and hues are the same types of shits you find in any countryinthe world? Do you read German? If you do I'll send you a link to a sordid story thats presently rocking the Govt in Slovenia. If you close your eyes to the depravity of it it's quite amusing,Cathar11 (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert?

You took out my para with [7] but didn't say so in the edit summary. If this was an accident, can you undo it? If it was deliberate, please explain on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I see that *I* accidentally removed your text in my go. Sorry about that, not deliberate I assure you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My apologies for any lack of clarity in the edit summary which contributed to any confusion. Look forward to working with you in the future. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you make a revert, you're responsible for your edit. Please explain why you are (a) incorrectly imputing context to quotes, and (b) adding grammatical errors to the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the BRD cycle, which is undermined by a person who just was just reverted after a BOLD edit reverting the revert. If you see an obvious grammatical/spelling error that doesn't change the meaning of the article, then fix it. (I won't report you to Climate Change sanctions enforcement) Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A revert conveys no special rights. You are responsible for your edits. Your edit introduced factual errors. Your edit introduced grammatical errors. That's your edit. You own the changes you made.

The BRD idea (which is, of course, nothing more than an essay) requires that you discuss things. The factual and grammatical errors were outlined on the article's talk page. There was a clear attempt at discussion. But you chose to ignore the discussion (as did Heyitspeter) and blindly revert. You can't invoke WP:BRD as cover if you aren't following it. Nope. Not an option. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a clear attempt at a discussion after the revert of the revert, not before. I disagree with your opinion regarding WP:BRD; the onus was on Dave to defend his bold edit, not HiP to defend his revert of Dave's edit. So when Dave reverted without discussion, I merely reverted to set things back to the way things were before Dave reverted the revert, so as to have him justify his edit, instead of merely reverting any opposition to it. Hopefully you understand, but not everything thinks the same way about these things. Moogwrench (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Krentz

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Congratulations! I have randomly chosen you for a Barnstar. I just wanted to try out the heart-icon-thingy that I just noticed at the top of the screen. Enjoy! Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Susan Powell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Susan Powell 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/Disappearance of Susan Powell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Dmol (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Current Issues in Education

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Current Issues in Education, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: academic journals not covered under A&. Thank you. Danger (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info regarding speedy delete decline. I wasn't too sure because it said it was student-run and I didn't know if it was of sufficient caliber for retention. Again, thanks for the helpful notice here. Moogwrench (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Analytical Measurement Calibration & Safety (AMCS)

Hello Moogwrench. Thanks for patrolling new pages - it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Analytical Measurement Calibration & Safety (AMCS), that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3), and articles being created through Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10 - 15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bob Beckwith

Hello! Your submission of Bob Beckwith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK? for Bob Beckwith

Replied at the hook page. Passing, but I'd still upgrade the references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Check on plagiarism added, my bad. Why the code is broken, that I am not sure. If you find out, let me know... could ask at WT:DYK, I guess. I am not overly concerned with that, because DYK admins still need to move the DYK (I cannot), so might as well have them fixing the code. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Subst'ed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Beckwith

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Moogwrench! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman

Per consensus at the mass AfD, I have relisted every entry individually. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Commandos

The article was for a tag team stable, not a "club" and all of the references were listed. Instead of fixing it, you just deleted it. You are disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrestling11 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD Tag- Chunky Man

Just so you know, your speedy deletion tag of Chunky Man was changed from A7 to G10, since it is an attack page (it's entirely negative and only attacks its target). Be sure to tag attack pages as G10, as that makes them priorities for speedy deletion for admins and also blanks the page, so other editors can't see the negative content. --Slon02 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as I put it on there I realized that G10 would be better and tried to change it, but another editor scooped me and got it on there first. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: MerchantMaster.Biz

Thank You

for responding so quickly. I guess that would be a problem.

I thank you for your speedy deletion....LOL and speedy response! LOL I will determinately have to fix this....

Thanks again!--Mrbuckley916 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If you come across independent sources that are reliable (like respectable computer magazines or trade journals or the like) that show significant coverage of your site, that would go a long way towards having it included in Wikipedia. Moogwrench (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the man

That's what friends are for. Respect with honors go to Moogwrench--Mrbuckley916 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is what we are here for! :) FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, Peridon had responded to you on their page. Moogwrench (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CRU RfC

The August 2011 CRU requested move was closed by GTBacchus with the recommendation that "anyone wishing to continue" should "pursue a content RFC... at WP:AT." Please close the CRU RfC and take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I created a notice at Wikipedia talk:Article titles regarding this RfC instead. Thank you for your advice. Moogwrench (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reasonable objection to a proposal to close your RfC by consensus? You were politely asked to take your concerns to WP:AT, so I don't see the purpose of the current RfC. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the outcome of the RfC is fairly intimately inter-twined with any issue as WP:AT. I expressed my reasoning for the RfC (which comes at the heels of the recent page move request), that it was to solicit more input. I think a week is far too short a time and the page move request the inappropriate vehicle to adequately gauge community consensus on the thorny issues surrounding the use non-neutral common names or non-neutral words in descriptive titles, but that this RfC has the potential to reinforce a supposed lack of consensus at the community level, at which it really would be appropriate to take it to WP:AT and/or WP:NPOV. Their does seem to be consensus for the using of non-neutral words in titles for other recent history items, such as 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, and so I really want to gauge a wider-range (given more time) of editor input on this issue. I appreciate the politeness of your request, and humbly ask you not to take offense if I continue the RfC. Respectfully, Moogwrench (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate forum for an RfC about article titles is AT not CRU. The closing admin of the August requested move made this clear. I don't see how your RfC is different from the previous discussion, nor has consensus changed between then and now. The current discussion shows a rough consensus for closure. It is considered disruptive to continue asking the same question, over and over for almost three years, in the hopes of obtaining a different answer. The community has spoken, and unless you have a very good reason for keeping this RfC open, I will move to close it. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin made a recommendation, as you previously stated, not a prescription. The RfC is different in that it lasts longer than a page move request, which is why I initiated. One of the reasons why I did not participate in the most recent page move request was because I was not even aware of it until it had already passed, unlike some editors that edit heavily on that page. So the purpose of the RfC is to solicit opinion over a longer period of time to allow more editors who are not as frequent editors as you to contribute. Surely you don't think that this is a bad idea? The events in question happened about 2 years ago, not 3, as you misstate. The fact that editors keep raising the issue merely shows that there is no consensus, as the closing admin of the page move said, and so I don't know how you claim to speak for the community, when no consensus on this issue has been forthcoming. I bear no ill will to you, but I also have no idea what you personally would consider to be a good reason to keep the RfC open. I don't know why you would want to prematurely close the RfC. Why not give it 30 days? Why move to close it after less than 1? Does the idea of letting a wider amount of editors opine concern you? Moogwrench (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You bring up interesting points. Let me briefly answer them in the order they were raised:

1. The closing admin, GTBacchus (talk · contribs) is a neutral party who has acted as a mediator, not on issues related to climate change, but on the topic of article titles. His recommendation, therefore, comes from a subject-neutral POV, which is ideal. Your reaction and response tells me you don't recognize it. You started an RfC about article titles and NPOV naming on the wrong talk page. I'm curious what exactly it is going to take to get you to understand your mistake, but it is obvious from the RfC notification you left on AT, that you reversed the process. As GTBacchus made clear, this needs to be discussed in an RfC on the article title talk page, not on the CRU page.
2. You say you were not aware of the previous move request, and you claim that the RfC will bring in outside contributors instead. That doesn't make sense. Here's why: 1) There are currently 260 page watchers, which is more than enough contributors. 2) The RfC and requested move process are virtually identical, in that both are updated and advertised by a bot in centralized locations. And, like RfC's, move requests "are processed by a handful of regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures." You may not know that like move requests, we have RfC regulars who contribute, especially with the new RfC feedback request service, which is subscribed to by regulars on their chosen topic. To summarize: requested moves bring in just as many outside contributors as RfC's, and the page is already watchlisted by 260 editors. Considering that the talk page has somewhere around only ~20 regular contributors, we already have enough eyes on the talk page. So, your argument that an RfC is needed to bring more editors in doesn't appear to be supported by facts.
3. You are correct that the CRU incident occurred two years ago, although it feels like three years to me, as disruption on this topic peaked in 2008 with the creation of hundreds of sock puppets who began disrupting multiple climate change pages. The modus operandi of these accounts was to ask the same questions over and over again on the talk pages and to add the same information to the articles.
4. That fact that editors keep raising the issue has no bearing on consensus. In fact, we've had at least five requested moves, none of which have resulted in a consensus to move to "climategate". To clarify, there never has been a consensus to move the article to "climategate".
5. The burden of proof is on you to show why the RfC should remain open, not on me to show why I think it should be closed. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me go over your responses:

1. Like I said, I wasn't aware of the page move, and I am sure others weren't as well, because of the short time frame. If a person if an irregular editor, and perhaps edits every other week, it would have been possible for them to completely miss the page move, which as I said, lasts only 7 days. The RfC, with its longer time frame, has the potential to give more irregular editors the chance to notice and contribute to such things. Or do you think that only regular watchers of a particular topic/venue should be the ones to opine?
2. I am sorry that the duties of editorship (dealing with SPAs, socks, and the like) frustrate you sometimes. That is no reason to silence what other editors feel to be a legitimate issue. The closing admin to the page move indicated that there were important issues to be addressed. I happpen to disagree with the appropriate venue for discussing them, since I believe that the issue stands less with WP:AT than it does applying WP:AT to the article in question.
3. I never claimed that there was consensus (locally) in the past to move to Climategate. However, likewise there has never been a stable consensus towards keeping the title in its current state. The title has changed over time. The fact that a significant amount of local editors believes that it should be changed to Climategate but have not been able to achieve consensus around that move because of another local group of editors is equally opposed to that name does not mean consensus have been achieved to keep it there indefinitely.
4. Again, I have no idea what kind of "proof" you could require. I have stated my reasoning (longer time frame, no consensus, definite issue to be discussed) and your initial disagreement regarding my placement of the RfC was that it was at the wrong venue. I honestly do not believe that the issue is with WP:AT. I believe WP:AT is sufficiently clear in this case. Other non-neutral names/words in titles of articles of recent historical origin exist and have been accepted by the community. The issue in my mind is with a local application of the community policy/consensus. I want to see if a community consensus exists to apply WP:AT in the way I believe it applies. If the community still arrives at no consensus, then it really does mean that WP:AT needs to be revised, though the potential awkwardness of trying to revise WP:AT in some way to better delineate a difference in using POV titles when we like them and other POV titles when we don't seems difficult when you consider that those contributing will likely be the same heavily invested editors that regularly edit the article in question and others like it. Just out of curiosity, since the admin did suggest a content RfC at WP:AT, saying that it would be "nice" to get these issues resolved, if you were to put an RfC at WP:AT, what would you query? I am interested to see what you would propose, since you think that is absolutely the best venue for dealing with the issue of application of policy to this article's name. Moogwrench (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC link

Hi Moogwrench. I saw your post at WT:AT. The link you provided, presumably intended to take readers to the RFC, is to the article page, not the talk page where the RFC is. Probably the most targeted link you could provide is: Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Request for Comment regarding Name/Title (and you could always pipe the link in any way you chose). I did not change it, of course, because of the very strong prohibition on editing other people's posts. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother 2011 accusation

I edited material I had contributed myself to update it, not vandalise so it would be appreciated that you do not accuse me of vandalsim, perhaps after contact with others trying to remove material they wish to delete. It was not vandalism, it was an update to that I had written myself. A contributor from UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your page. Moogwrench (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversal of deletions: Solid Edge

Hello ! I see you've reverted my deletions on this article. Yet I see them as necessary as they are essentially advertisement and unverified claims, like "claimed to speed up process up to 100 times". Most so-called "references" are from the software company itself, which gives it no real substance. Also, many so-called "reviews" in the CAD industry are very superficial. See for instance http://www.deelip.com/?p=3758 Using them as references is ludicrous at best. I didn't deface the substance of the article but removed the parts that made it an ad. It's sad to see that Wikipedia serves as a commercial place for marketing managers. We have to fight this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.2.163 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but it would be wise if you talk about exactly what you feel makes those contributions spam/advertisement. Also, realize that External links have a different policy as well than just straight out references within the article (I am refering to some of your previous edits). Also, remember to use descriptive edit summaries that explain what you are doing, otherwise it just looks like you are randomly blanking sections if you don't put anything in your summary, like with this edit. Moogwrench (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I failed to describe more clearly my edits. I thought they were quite obvious. The references I've removed are either self serving references to websites/videos made by the company itself, i.e pure marketing, or by so-called third party reviews that are untrustable (this can be questioned, I agree), or obsolete links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.2.163 (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Some coal balls falafel for you!

Thanks! →Στc. 05:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

hi there, I am Vincent and I hail from South Africa. I thought of it a nice idea to establish intelectual conversations with people across the world, I hope me and you could share knowledge about everyday events. By the way I'm a 19 year old, Black Male student. As i function (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for American School Hygiene Association

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

When you're looking at new pages, it's generally recommended that you not tag articles for A7 deletion so quickly. You tagged Game of Nerds only 3 minutes after it was created. Now, I did go ahead and delete the page, as it was clear to me (after a little online research) that no amount of work would make the article pass A7, but it's better to give new articles a few hours in case the article creator is still in the middle of the creation process and is intending to add more info that would be a credible claim of significance or importance. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, especially from a WP:BITE perspective, but at the same time, I think a few hours is too long to wait to tag something, perhaps an hour would okay... if the case is indeterminate. Each page has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, if something looks like it has potential, sure... why not give it time, eh? But if we are talking about some dinky free online flash game, why are we going to waste a lot of time dealing with something like that? It was readily apparent that it wasn't going to pass A7 from the get go. Moogwrench (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What if the "dinky free online flash game" won some sort of award for "Best new online game of 2010?" What if it became so popular that it were talked about in regular newspapers or tech journals? I agreed that in that case, that article wasn't going to pass, but that was only after I went searching around online for other sources. I guess to me, it's that there's really no harm in keeping things up for an hour or two. However, there is a counter argument based on "trying to catch the editor while they're still here"; I've raised a discussion about this (not this specific deletion, but about whether we should codify more specific "rules" about timing) at WT:NPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i didn't i just thought it ok i sweare on my life i didn't cheat off a nother person iswear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriena lee (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Moogwrench, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOW?

Hi,
please have a look at Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW -- the WP:NOTNOW essay is intended for very new editors starting an RfA, not for an editor with 4000+ edits over 2.5 years like Ankitbhatt.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

re hi to an old friend

Delighted to hear from you. I really haven't much time to work on wiki. v. busy surviving the Irish economic recession / collapse. When I have cleaned up some of the pages I created and finished off an article in the sandbox I would be delighted to discuss editing and de-emoting the coup articles. (; Cathar11 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)