User:Momoricks/Archive2

January 2009–June 2009

Hey

When you have a chance, take a look at the top of my user page and see if you notice something new... :))) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. I was very pleased, it's my first, and I haven't a first something in quite a long time. :) Do you still have snow there? It's 50 here today, not usual Indiana January weather. Have a safe trip and enjoy (?). Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So was it you that left the notes about Audrey Hepburn on my talk page from an IP in Arizona and said you wiked me? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing okay, mostly. I thought that was you, but I wasn't sure, so I didn't want to say. I saw you left the note for Rossrs, he's the Hepburn lover. :) I'd be mostly fine if it wasn't for the dog thing. Sheesh. One of my neighbors - the antisocial one with whom I've never spoken - moved out on the Saturday after Christmas and we discovered that he'd left his dog behind in a chain link kennel. I hadn't noticed because the dog was spending his time in the dog house (it was decent at least) and wasn't out when I was. I heard him bark the other night and discovered, after some checking and observation, that someone was coming to feed it, but not everyday and not adequately. His water was frozen over and any dog food that had been there was gone. I had a couple partial bags of cat food that my cats wouldn't eat, so I had been giving him that. I saw that someone had come Sunday and dumped part of a bag of dog food on the ground of the kennel, although the water was still frozen. I took over a rather large ham bone for him the other night and fell flat on my ass and hurt my back. The dog was more interested in the bone than the idiot laying there in the kennel, although I don't blame him. In any case, I called animal control on Saturday and they said they couldn't come out until today, which resulted in a note saying "call within 24 hours or we will take the dog". I feel badly about calling, because I'm afraid he'll end up being put down, but I can't afford to keep him and I can't let him starve slowly. He's a nice part-Rottweiler. Sigh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have issues with my back anyway, but it never helps. I wasn't as concerned about being peed on as I was the mild humping this evening when I fed him. He was just so glad to see me... Hah! Did you notice above how warm it was here last week? It will be -5 one night this week. Indiana in the winter, I swear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So that was you! I didn't recognise you while you were travelling incognito and yes, I now understand what you were trying to do. I am not Audrey Hepburn's lover, by the way. That is an unsourced rumour and should be removed. Rossrs (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very odd. I wonder who it was. I don't usually mention the velvet Audrey on the wall, as it's such a give-away. You know what I saw in the supermarket last week? Audrey Hepburn oven mits! I swear! Who would want Audrey Hepburn oven mits??? Rossrs (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

sooo this wasn't you?? Okay, that's freaky. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is someone who's been around before, I just can't think of who it is. It's a little freaky. Ah well. We had a bit of a blizzard today and now it is 9 degrees and dropping. Just grand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP Crime/Criminal

Someone (not sure who he is or why it is important to him) wants the WP:Crime project to combine its project banners into one (we use {{WP Crime}} and {{WP Criminal}}) and I've explained why it seems to be important to have separate ones. Would you look at the talk at Template talk:WP Criminal and give an opinion. My view on it is there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if you look at the explanation I left for Pinkadelica here. I think it explains it better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Robert Wagner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Wagner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh

I get tired of the same old edit summaries. :) How's stuff? We had about 10 inches of snow here the last 30 hours! I couldn't get my front storm door open, so I threw the cats out of the crack and they clawed their way to the snow shovel and cleared the way. And while I have you here, there is a conversation on Talk:Charles Manson about a sentence in the article where we addressed the urban myth that Manson auditioned for the Monkees. It was included because people kept popping asking about it so we included it to debunk the myth. A passing editor removed it as fluff and trivia then basically denounced the whole article as a fan page. It was the latter that irked me, as I think we did a remarkably good job in addressing the whole of Manson and his influence without resorting to fluffery and adoration. Regardless, if you have time, could you look at it and render an opinion if you have one? Thanks, and hi there! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, what did you think of my rewording here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Momoricks, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

As you may notice from the history, my change only lasted a minute before I undid it. However, I still think it's a good idea (only about a dozen of the world's nearly 200 countries have states), so I encourage you to put it into practice, provided you can get the code right. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the specific article for which the template seemed problematic is Akira Nishiguchi - neither Fukuoka, nor Shizuoka, nor Tokyo is a state per se. So again, if we can come up with an effective solution for such a case, I'd be glad. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations - hi there!

Thanks! I did't even know that it's going to be on the main page! It was pretty a luck/at random that I've seen that. But hopefully and probably it also helps the band. Cheers :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force

Thanks for doing that. I saw it when it was posted, and actually believe it was sincere and just didn't have the heart to do anything with it. How's ya? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I knowwwww, it was a bit of pathos, wasn't it? I've spent the evening dealing with an old sock puppet buddy/nemesis. Sheesh!!! I'll watch my mail. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a vandalism free for all. In fact, it was many layers of vandalism and this guy doesn't much like Mark Maloney. LOL. I see you had no problem getting it protected! By the way, I managed to do the nearly impossible. I got Charles Manson permanently semi-protected a couple weeks ago. People LOVE to vandalize that page! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I got it semi-protected only through persistence in reporting the vandalism, over a year in the making. I sent you a reply to the business email address - at least I think I got the wire right. Did I? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

re: stuff

I think the main page would be better for SKTF. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lundin

I've now expanded and sourced the article per our discussion on my talkpage. I hope it is alright by you now, I think it's much better now myself. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article. I noticed that you removed Category:Date of birth missing (living people) from the article's talkpage as misplaced. However, that category actually is intended for discussion pages, according to the category itself. Don't ask me why, apparently that's just the way it is :-) -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 06:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ţerova River (Brezoviţa) and Ţerova River (Bârzava)

I checked the formats for book citations in wikipedia articles and they do not indicate that titles of references have to be translated. They have to be presented in the original language. If I missed something please notify me and indicate where this requirement is posted.

As far as the maps are concerned, they are links to web pages with the maps. If web pages titles are modified the links cannot be used. Again, please indicate the style rules which you consider applicable.Afil (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced from life experience?

Hi. You wrote on my talk page requesting that i include sources for a "good faith edit" to the article Serial Killer. When referencing the happenings of a television show (where my reference is having seen the show) what would you recommend for a source? Should the reference be IMDB, the show's official website, a new article about the show, a place to purchase the DVDs? Thanks for any help. Peabody80 (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Aw shucks, thanks. Are you a member WP:ACTOR? I can't remember. If you are, or gee, if you aren't, there is a poll at WT:ACTOR regarding removing the awards parameters from the actor infobox. It's getting out of hand. If you have an opinion, it certainly is welcome! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack March

Thanks for alerting me to your proposed move. I frankly have no idea why you would want to delete this article, particularly on the grounds of notability, as he was the promoter of a very well-known tournament, but do as you like. At least I copied my own contribution to the article over to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Jack_March, where an encyclopedia that doesn't allow cretins and vandals to overwhelm it a la Wikipedia is being created. I also brought over my work on http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Sam_Match, who is mentioned in this article. Thanks for inspiring me to do so! Two more articles for Citizendium, maybe one article less for Wikipedia.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an enormous dichotomy between WP and Citizendium. I appreciate what you've done, but I find it hard to believe that your laundry list of three sentences, plus some non-explicated footnotes, is superior to what is now to be found at CZ, based on my original WP article:

Jack March was an American tennis professional of the mid-20th century about whom little is known today. He was best known for a number of years as being the promoter, from 1950 through 1964, of the indoor Cleveland tennis tournament for professionals known by various names but generally as the United States Professional Championship. It was widely considered to be the single most prestigious professional tournament during that period. But even here information is sometimes sketchy. Bud Collins says in Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia, that its dates were "1955-1962" and that it was called the "World Pro Championships".

World Tennis magazine, in its November, 1964, issue said in its article "25 Years Ago" that in the fall of 1939 March was already a teaching professional at the Hollywood Beach Hotel in Florida. In Joe McCauley's book, The History of Professional Tennis, March is shown as playing in the U.S. Professional Championship from at least 1942 through 1950.

He is not to be confused with another professional tennis player of the same era, Sam Match.

But different strokes for different folks, I guess. Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moby

Hello Momoricks. I don't know if it was intentional but when you edited Moby it restored the "American Episcopalians" category which some of us have discussed and decided to remove. I think you put some sort of template in, which I don't mind, but I didn't know how to remove the Episcopalians category and keep your template so I've undone your whole edit. (Chorleypie (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Re: EmilEikS

Hello, again. Please see my latest post at User_talk:EmilEikS#Socking. This user has not stopped editing. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lundin

A brief explanation for this. First, there is a source. I do not know if you understand it, but if that is an issue you can always ask at WP:DK. If you consider the source unreliable or "not up to the standard" of WP:R, this applies for its usage throughout the article, not just the intro (though I personally cannot see the issue with the source here, as the matter is relatively straight forward). If not useful here, it would exclude BT –and the similar Ekstra Bladet– as sources for BLP's (which would be sensible in cases that are disputed, but I doubt anyone could find an article disputing the here mentioned name change). While it is the standard to have articles placed on the best know name (as this article is, per WP:Name), it is also the standard to start with the full current name of the person. See for example Barack Obama, Raúl Reyes, Adam Copeland, Bono, Sting, etc. If you know a policy suggesting that the current official name of a person should not be used initially in an article, I would be interested in knowing about it. Regardless of this specific article, I might suggest you check a bit more of an edit before reverting it fully (at least when not obvious WP:Van), as you also reverted a typo (name change --> namechange), though perhaps that was easy to overlook. • Rabo³ • 23:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Thank you for offering to help, I really appreciate it. Review the article whenever it is convenient for you (I'm in no major hurry). I left messages on all three related WikiProjects so hopefully I can get several people to take a look at the article. If you have any questions or need further information, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. Take your time, and if you notice anything you want fixed, please let me know and I'll get right to it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate your work so far. Perhaps when it goes to FAC, I'll send you a notice to take a look then (probably a few months down the line). Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Note

I noticed the project when you dropped banners on the talk of the DYK I wrote. I will keep an eye on the various project pages, but let me know if there is anything specific I can help out with. See ya around! — Jake Wartenberg 13:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot RfC

There was a prior RFC and a WP:3O on a different issue, at the article's talk page. There were also ANI threads involving the article, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#Disruptive_behavior_and_incivility_by_User:Off2riorob and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Disruption_from_two_users_at_a_GA-rated_article. There may be other history as well, but a perusal of the article's talk page should help with that. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your comment at the RFC. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I hope in the future at some point to work on getting more articles relating to crime to WP:FA status. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could use your input again at the article's talk page, the disruptive WP:SPA Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is making POV pushing edits on the article, and also added a reply comment to his RFC statement at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Exclude in Print Category

This category is mainly for the Books Function now live on Wikipedia. According to the page, "all content (especially templates) that is not useful for an offline version of the document, should be excluded from the print version." Hope this helps! Mylesgray (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If a template translcudes into another template, and is in the category, the same template is included. For example, if {{Ambox}} is in the category, that means all the templates that use {{Ambox}} are excluded from print. Hope this helps, and sorry for the delayed reply. Mylesgray (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Member removal from WP Crime:

Yeah... BUT. The guy who did it had no business doing so. After I looked at some pages, whether or not the guy was blocked/banned, the person who removed the name from the list was the main person with whom the issue was with. It had the distinct flavor of "so there!!!" to it. We don't usually just remove a name from the list, but move it to inactive. There's no need to eradicate the existence of even a banned user from the list. They were here, they did do work, and now they aren't. I started to leave the guy a note, then decided not to. My feeling was it was a bit of bad faith, if you follow. It would be like getting into a battle with you, getting you banned, then going around and erasing your name from everything. It just wasn't his place to do that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I recently passed the 30000 edit mark! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I can see why you wondered. Like I said, it was something akin to thumbs in the ears, tongue-wagging out, going "nyah, nyah-nyah-nyah nyah!!" and given that it isn't necessarily true that a ban or block means forever, it seemed meanspirited. But thanks, it is a bit ginormous, isn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ann Bilansky

Well... Mary Ann Evards Wright was actually her maiden name. Her husband was named Stanislaus Bilansky. I found some information at Google books. Murder in Minnesota By Walter N. Trenerry and Women who kill By Ann Jones There seems to be enough info out there to write a better stub than what is there. It needs an infobox, anyway. I put the married name in. The external link is dead, so I removed it. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It barely skirts notability, but on the surface, it is so, because of her being the only woman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. You, me and Crohnie. I wish there were more serious members. But we can hardly muster participation in WP:ACTOR even! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just caught this conversation. I will probably be having spinal surgery done in the next few weeks. But after I feel better maybe I can help out more in these areas with a little help to teach me some of the ropes that I probably don't know. Wish me luck on this one! :) Also feel free, both of you, to email me if you would like. I should know when I am being sent to the surgeon hopefully by next Thursdays appt with the neurologist. I think the waiting is the hardest. Happy Mother's Day! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Ah, I usually do. Guess it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder. Ciao Fdssdf (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Frances Farmer

No, her revenge is but a myth, websites about it aren't reliable. Seriously, it's a personal website and not considered a reliable one. May be away mostly for a couple weeks, so don't fret if you don't hear from me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Momoricks, please be patient with me as I am staying active here to keep myself occupied until I have to take a wikibreak for surgery. I am having trouble focusing so I will try to be clear here but don't hesitate to ask for more if needed. Here you put back the note that is supported by two refs. (Wow really bad sentence, sorry can't seem to put a good one together.) What is the need for the note when the two refs state the same thing as the note? I am trying to understand this, not question you about what you did. I figure you know what you are doing with this so I am trying to figure out why it is done like this I guess. It seems redundant to me but if this is protocol that's ok. I just don't remember seeing this set up on any other article though I could have missed it too. I hope I am clear in what I am saying, brain fog is here for me for a while I think. :) Thanks as always, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

re Congratulations

It's been an FA since March 2008, but thanks so much for the kind words! Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) Cirt (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Kissel and her case

I don't know what made them decide to name this article in that way. Personally, I have issues with invoking WP:ONEEVENT in regard to a murder suspect who is convicted. In regard to the crime and the crime project, she qualifies as notable. Yeah, the person may not have been notable before, but the notability now remains. In regard to WP:ONEEVENT, what should have been done was leave the biography article and maybe create a page for Murder of Robert Kissel. The Andrew Kissel page should be named the Murder of Andrew Kissel. We do not normally have biography pages for murder victims that weren't notable except for being murdered. Some of the policies are a bit contradictory.

The third paragraph of WP:ONEEVENT is most relevant here: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan." This is the rationale behind the redirect of Nancy Kissel to the murder. It's wrong. She is as important as the event. It's a bit screwed up. My day has been good for a change. I'll write later tonight about why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me know, I'll weigh in. Right now, I'm off to read a bit more of New Moon and see if I can't tap into my inner devastated girlfriend experiences! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)