User talk:Moosehadley/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome!
Hello, Moosehadley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Eyesnore 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I really intended to make that edit - I even left an edit summary why. Rmhermen (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize, I see that now. I wasn't paying attention as I should have been. Moosehadley (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Stop with the threats
"This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Moosehadley (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)"
Not appriciated. Assume good faith. These are wiki rules. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No one said this but...
...great cosplay picture! 
-- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Werieth (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Moosehadley/Archive 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Enjoyed working along side you today! Keep up the great work! Look forward to working with you in the future. Jab843 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
My Changes on "Hypocrisy"
The first change I made was on this sentence: "Hypocrisy often involves the deception of others and thus can be considered a kind of lie." If something involves deception, it is a lie, there is not any debate. My second was on "Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety." Whether or not he makes a "pretense of constant sobriety" does not constitute hypocrisy; what matters is whether he believes in what he is saying.--24.62.109.225 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize, it appears that I had acted too quickly, I have reinstated your edit. Moosehadley 21:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you not only for reinstating, but for your politesse and humility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Mars Volta
HI Moosehadley! I wrote those contributions because it seems that Mars Volta toured with Red Hot Chili Peppers until 13th April in London. The last gig with Peppers is in Oslo. From 29 March to 13th April they toured as headliner with Radio Voga and Subtitle. Feel free to do what you want, and sorry for my bad english!
bye
Federico
- Hi, Federico. I reverted your edit on accident, I didn't actually mean to do that. I added your edit back to the page then deleted the warning I sent you, sorry about that. Moosehadley 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, ciao!
Ehm.. sorry again, tha last date with Red Hot Chili Peppers wasn't Oslo, but Stockholm. Now I really finished, bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.193.245 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Thanks! SpencerT♦C 21:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Facebook Community Page
I attempted to add a link to our film's official facebook page in an attempt to direct people away from the community page which does not include updates on the film. Why can't I include a link to the film's official facebook in the wikipedia article? It would be useful to fans looking for the best information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.74 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The link needs to be in the 'External Links' section of the page, not the main article. Advertising in the body of an article is not allowed. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) Moosehadley 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Why can't I include a link to our film's official facebook page in the External Links section of the wikipedia article? 72.43.191.74 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good question, because I see no reason for it being reverted either. I actually undid the recent revert, because I'm sure you're not trying to use it for the purpose of advertising, and it's a relevant link. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, I'm Jonathanfu. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Craig Mabbitt, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jonathanfu (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Jonathanfu, could you please explain how my edit was not constructive? The user 'MarylinManson9' added the line 'Mr. Mabbit recives lots of hate from fans of the former lead singer, Ronnie Radke He is also a completely horrible singer', this is a biased, unsourced, personal opinion and has no place on an encyclopedia. I reverted his edits, you then reverted my edit, adding this line back to the page. Moosehadley 22:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whups, that's my bad, I was trying to undo his edit as well, looks like Huggle refreshed the shown version of the article I was viewing just as I hit the revert button. Sorry about that and thanks for the notice. Jonathanfu (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Blesseds
Hi Moose, With one or two small exceptions the only changes I've made is to update Blesseds who have been canonized since the last update. There are several. Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.214.65 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Joe, I just took a look at your edit and it appears that I made mistake while attempting to revert vandalism. I have added your changes back to the article, sorry about that! Moosehadley 23:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moosehadley!
Thanks for the message. Did you see the citations on that taxation piece? There should be at least four or five from peer-reviewed sources.
Did spend some time on that and it is well researched. Would appreciate it if you could check that again.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.11.10.188 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I'm looking at the edits I reverted now and I actually don't remember ever reverting. I use an automation tool for dealing with vandalism and it seems that I most likely hit a wrong button. I have added all your hard work back to the article, and removed the warning I placed on your talk page. I apologize for my mistake and do hope that you continue making such great contributions to Wikipedia! I strongly encourage you to make an account, that will allow you take credit for your work and create new articles. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) Moosehadley 06:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sisu
I am sorry, just edited it mostly for a little laugh I could print out for my family. My grandma passed away and we just had the funeral yesterday, she was Finnish, had a lot of unfortunate things happen in her lifetime, but she was a very strong women, and got a lot accomplished. Her reply when something unfortunate happened, was always "Sisu, I have always had it, I will be ok." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.83.249 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
History of chiropractic
Hi Moosehadley! I don't take offense to your revision at all, I can understand why someone might think it's vandalism. I reverted it back to the previously stable version, a mix of Alexbrn and my additions of the osteopathic vs. chiropractic. I have posted on the talk page there for discussion. Feel free to join if you wish. Regards, DVMt (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I was unaware that there was discussion going on about these edits. To me, it just looked like somebody blanked a large section of the article. I have removed my warnings from your talk page. Moosehadley 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Letyhaz change
Hello. I used that account a few years ago. I haven't made edits since then. I no longer have access to the yahoo mail account I listed on my talk page. I didn't know how to go about deleting the account.
Regards, Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.120.123 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Tyler, there's been a bit of userpage vandalism going on recently. Typically this vandalism comes from IP users, I saw that you deleted the email address from your old userpage but didn't leave an edit summary, so I assumed that an anonymous user was making unauthorized changes to someone's page. I'll remove my warning from your talk page. Moosehadley 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I dont really mind if the address is in the history, i just don't want it on the front page. I appreciate your fast response. Thank you. Tyler.74.42.120.123 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Mike Ratchuk
Hello, sorry sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.233.70 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur III, Duke of Brittany
What did you take out of the page after I inserted it? Why did you consider it "unconstructive" ? 96.224.67.52 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, I only saw your very last edit, I was unaware of all the previous work you had done to the article. Your last edit added ',br> (during Hundred YEars' war)' to the page. ',br>' is incorrect markup as it should be '<br>'. That, in addition to the mis-capitalization on 'YEar' caused me to believe that this was an inexperienced editor who wasn't quite sure what he was doing, and such edits belong in the Sandbox, looking at the revision history I can clearly see that this is not the case, and I have reinstated all of your work, I will also remove my warning from your talk page. I apologize for this mistake. Moosehadley 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Super thanks. I appreciate your help. 96.224.67.52 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that within minutes you reverting an edit which replaced zoo with a fur farm. I really appreciate your reaction, and the edit indeed looked like vandalisom, but this is a rare case when impressions are mistaken - that was indeed a fur farm, I just overlooked it previously. Additionally, I happen to know the editor (assuming User:Timur Maisak is his real name). So I checked again and restored his edit. Sorry for thet. Your efforts are much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Subcouncils of the City of Cape Town edits
Hi Moose, I am the Subcouncils writer for the City of Cape Town and I am in the process of updating the Wikipedia entry with the latest detail. You are welcome to assist with neatening up my entries, but please don't remove the edits. Thanks. 41.208.10.82 (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE/ABRAM HOFFER
I have received your comment that my insertion of information in the articles on orthomolecular medicine and Dr. Abram Hoffer violate Wikipedia's neutrality rule. If certain foods have been repeatedly demonstrated, for thousands of years, to confer health benefits on the eater (specifically plant foods), why is it a violation of neutrality to mention this, and to mention that animal "foods" not designed for consumption by the human body, cause health problems? Wikipedia of course will do what it wants. I continue to assert that pro-ill health bias, as is glaringly evident in the original article, is a violation of neutrality. I assert this truth because I am not beholden to the AMA or the successful US economy. For further discussion please email me at <zalmoxis@sbcglobal.net>. Thank you. 173.11.121.73 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Drake being in "Southern Hip Hop"
Date: 2/17/2013
Hello, I just wonder why Drake is listed under Southern Hip Hop when he is a Canadian rapper with very little influence in or from sothern hip hop music stylistically. It honestly make very little sense for a Canadian rapper to be put under a category of an area of the U.S.(specifically Atlanta) he's not from. Why is he there?
-Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.122.37 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Vaginismus
Hello, the previous edit is not vandalism, please consult sources about it. 141.136.222.121 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Blue is the warmest colour
Having seen the film, I can tell you that what is surprising is not only that the scenes are graphic, especially the 69 scene in close up which is at the heart of the film, it is also that they are extremely long (more than 15 minutes for one of them). Watching people having sex for that duration in a mainstream movie is an unusual experience. I have put a reference in French which says that one of the sex scenes is more than 15 minutes and which I think justifies the fact that it is "long". Frankly, I think that my edit is an understatement. 90.58.250.200 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Protecting my Pages
Hi Moosehadley,
Just writing to thank you for freeing most of my pages from SMS's junk.
Thanks, Matty.007 12:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Have you got any suggestions on what to do about my talk page?
Thank you! See next notice.
Matty.007 12:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you SO MUCH for fixing my talk page! Matty.007 12:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi there,
I deleted the information on the page 'User:Vgautham 91' as the information held there is no longer true.
Cheers, Gautham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgautham 91 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
David Pugh
Hello, the edit may not have appeared constructive to you, however it is something which happened during David Pugh's career in politics, it is referenced appropriately, and should be left in place, especially in light of this: http://onthewight.com/2013/12/06/who-has-been-sanitising-david-pughs-wikipedia-page/ Accusations of sanitising a Wikipedia page are surely less constructive than putting accurate facts, however unpalatable, onto entries. Im sure you will agree?
Perhaps in future you should check citations and confirm whether the item you are removing is factual or not. Wikipedia is about facts, even if those facts appear unconstructive - they are still facts. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 79.64.232.250 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, I can assure you I am not an advocate of this person, by looking at my edit history you can see that I've been working on vandalism for a long time.
- The reason I removed your edit was because Wikipedia is no place for a quote such as "cheating bastard".
- A more constructive edit would be something along the lines of:
-
- David Pugh has been accused by his opposition of Electoral fraud during his time as Head of Youth[1]
- I went ahead and added that to the article for you, additionally, I have requested that the page be locked, to prevent future page sanitizing.
- You're welcome.
- Moosehadley 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankly unbelievable. I myself originally entered the quote as "cheating B*****d". This was removed by a user and the "cheating bastard" quote added because Wikipedia allows profanity when it is a direct quotation, as this is. Perhaps rather than issuing warnings to people, you should check the rules of Wikipedia - this profanity is permitted when it is a direct quotation. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 79.64.232.250 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Offensive_material "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1]should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
- Profanity should only be used if there is no alternative. Saying that the person 'has been accused of Electoral Fraud' is a perfect alternative.
- Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is used by everyone, including children, and if there is a way to keep an article 'clean', it should be done.
- Moosehadley 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I DID keep that in mind, which is why I used *** in the original quote. This was edited again and again by several users who made sure the word Bastard remained. Frankly, it is a direct quote, and should be in the article as such. You originally said nothing about profanity, just that you did not consider the entire section to be "constructive". It may very well not be constructive, but it IS factual. Warning another user because they enter something factual, and removing that entry smacks of censorship. You could have just removed the profanity - instead your original response was to remove the entire section. Perhaps you should think about that before making changes to referenced facts. Removing the profanity with *** as I originally did should have been enough - instead, different users have told me that it should remain, and now that it should go. Make your mind up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by79.64.232.250 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pete Seeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
CSD declined for Melody Oliveria
Hi, Just to let you know that the speedy deletion criteria of No Significance can only be applied where there is no credible assertion of notability. This is not the case here, as the article not only gives a credible assertion, but also includes reasonable references. In instances like this, if you still think that the article needs deletion, then you should take it to WP:AFD. Stephen! Coming... 10:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
A brownie for you!
|
Glad to see you're back! Matty.007 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
Mortal Instruments
Please note, you reverted 2 edits by an IP User to the Mortal Instruments film article. One of those edits was questionable but the change to the Box Office figures was entirely correct. That edit restored information that had been changed without any explanation or discussion and had ignored warnings in the wikisource, and had left the infobox and main article with two different versions of the information.
So thanks for your good faith reverts but please be careful. -- 109.79.136.19 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Who are you?
I did not give any work on wiki so why am i getting this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.185.55.204 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Josie Bitchface Waster Hag Cunt Cunningham
Remove the Jose Cunningham page please. It's a proliferation of a waste of time and organs. She doesn't have fans she has stalkers. Please, this, I'm sure, is in the benefit of the entire human collective. We need her gone. Preferably dead, but removed from Wiki would be a good start. -94.197.120.131
- While your phrasing is rather profane, I reviewed the page and it does appear to lack notability. I have tagged it for deletion.
- Next time, please look up the correct way to tag pages before making edits that will discredit you as a Vandal. Moosehadley 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do not re-add speedy deletion tags that have already been declined as obviously bogus. If you believe an article should be deleted, but it is not eligible for speedy deletion under any of the criteria for speedy deletion (listed here), consider proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion, rather than being disruptive. WilyD 15:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have contested your proposed deletion of this article, as the sources in it suggest she may pass WP:BIO. If you still think the article should be deleted, the next step is Articles for deletion. (Also, you may want to consider retitling this section of your talk page.) Robofish (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Librarianship and Human Rights in the United States
Moosehadley, I'm unsure of who this page belongs to but you reverted one of my edits to Librarianship and Human Rights in the United States Wiki page. I added a category for LGBT populations and was in the rcess of adding more to that section. The edits I and other people are making on this page are for a master's level college course and I am attempting to edit the page with scholarly information. I am also being graded on my edits. Please do not revert my edits. I am going to add my edit once more to the page. Nowens86 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Nowens, I reverted your edit because this is something that belongs in a See Also section, not the body of the article.
- Moosehadley 14:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Nowens, but I'm not going to write your edits for you.
- And you don't have your own personal section of the article, that isn't how Wikipedia works. This is a collaborative effort, no one can claim a part of any article as their own personal space to maintain that no one else may touch.
- Moosehadley 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Reversed Edit
Why did you reverse my edit? I wanted to show that I changed my mind about my original reason and that there are actually plenty of reliable sources available that the article-contributor mistakenly failed to include. Do you mean that I was being rude?
- Sorry, Paperpencils. I must have miss-judged your edit.
- Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Moosehadley 17:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Reversed edit
Apologies for the front Page thing. Had a Mobile catastrophe. Re: edit of mspy. The website for mspy is currently off line probably due to the high traffic caused by the company's latest software functionality. It was done without warning and premium users who paid specifically for that functionality have been short changed. Many Spyware review sites are out of date as a result of this sudden change so there are people purchasing the software even up to yesterday morning, that now cannot use the product in the way they intended. Once again I apologise for the front page it was unintended. Shiversss1 (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiversss1 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
you reverted all my edits
Dear Moosehadley. You reverted all my edits to Monte Alto culture without explanation. You reverted 12 edits. Did you do this by mistake? Why did you do this? Eio-cos (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Eio-cos, this edit where you placed the URL outside the link was the only one I meant to revert. Placing the address of the link outside of the link is redundant.
- However, it looks like my rollback undid all of your edits rather than just that one in particular. I have reinstated your edits, and made the correction I originally intended.
- Thank you for messaging me about this mistake. Moosehadley 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oopsie
I accidentally blocked you for a few seconds, when trying to block the person who vandalized your user page. My bad. I self corrected almost as soon as I realized what I had done. Sorry! --Jayron32 01:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Haha, all he did was tick my "This user page has been vandalized X times" counter up one, which is technically a meta-vandalism and a correct edit, I guess...
- But hey, huge thanks for looking out for me! Moosehadley 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
How was my Five Nights at Freddy's image inappropriate?
While I have been making (or at least try to make) appropriate edits on pages, I think that there has been one error which has been done for Five Nights at Freddy's.
I have added an image to demonstrate how the reviewers have reacted to the game, but it was removed because you did not think that it was "very constructive". For some reason, it did for me. Perhaps, it didn't look very scary enough to be relevant for the section of article for you because it was not in the more "constructive" GIF format instead, or, maybe, it just doesn't seem to have that much of a point for it, although I have tried to emphasize the scariness of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamingforfun365 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- A couple of reasons, the first one being your misuse of the word "anonymously".
- But Killerwhale24680 summed it up pretty well.
- > It may not be vandalism, but it is certainly not necessary. Gameplay images should only be included where they are absolutely needed
- Moosehadley 02:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You reverted edits that provided context to a statement in the Bert and Ernie article
Hello, you reverted an edit I made to the Bert & Ernie article. The edit provided helpful, constructive context to the article and was not factually incorrect. (Unsigned edit from User_talk:107.15.148.9)
- Hi there, Anonymous editor.
- While your edit was factually correct, it did not provide helpful or constructive context.
- It is already made clear that Sesame Workshop has denied those claims, and the edit you made was simply redundant and not at all in the proper writing-style of an encyclopedia.
- Also, please remember to always sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~)
- Moosehadley 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk to Her
The current sentence construction is grammatically incorrect. If you do not like my new construction, please change it in a different way. But it is not right to leave it as it is, as it is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winang (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User talk:66.74.176.59
Hi Moosehadley, I think you made a mistake with your warnings at User talk:66.74.176.59, though I can understand where you're coming from. You mistakenly pegged the editor's first edit here as unconstructive, which it was not. The statement "It was discovered by John Herschel in 1834 and its magnitude is 12.8" is correct, as "its" is the possessive form of "it". The user did make a mistake here, which through the filter of "hey, is this guy up to something?" would lead you to think he was vandalizing, but I think that edit was an honest mistake that he later fixed. I think both warnings should be stricken out with <s></s> Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Response at User talk:66.74.176.59 Moosehadley 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| I present you this barnstar for all your efforts in vandalism reversion; your abilities as a Huggler are commendable. Thank you for all your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean and vandalism free, and good luck! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
Your recent ip revert and warning
Regarding your revert here and the subsequent warning here, it seems you maybe should apologize to the ip. I know that ip edits are often viewed as potential vandalism, but the edit in question appears valid and had a good edit summary. The ip was re-instating an edit I had removed due to block evasion by another ip and as such with the edit summary was appropriately "owning" the edit. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Your RfA
It looks like the RfA isn't running that well. Would you consider to withdraw your candidature? [This is a standard courtesy offer.] Kraxler (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I am disappointed. However, it does look like that's the best option at this point.
- Thank you, Moosehadley 12:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think everyone who commented on the RfA for the short time it was running would say "it isn't personal" - and it isn't! If you gain experience in the relevant areas and file another RfA in 12 - 18 months time, nobody will hold this one against you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
I'm sorry the RfA didn't turn out the way you wanted. Although I don't think you're quite ready yet, I think you have the qualities to make a great administrator someday, and I very much look forward to supporting your candidacy in the future. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
Soft bunny
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone
User:Ritchie333, User:Kraxler, User:78.26, User:Anna Frodesiak, and anyone else I forgot;
Thank you all so much for your kind words, I deeply appreciate them. I haven't been discouraged by this, and I do plan on sticking around. Maybe I'll try again someday :)
Moosehadley 15:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
I must say your anti-vandal work is impressive, thanks for all you do, and please try again sometime! Kharkiv07Talk 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
ACAB
ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB ACAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.205.170 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you for that very intelligent and constructive response.
- Moosehadley 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The "chicken or egg" article
Dear Moosehadley. You reverted all my edits to the "Chicken or Egg" topic without explanation. You reverted a number edits. Did you do this by mistake? Why did you do this? I had not even finished making my updates. Furthermore, you included an article by Chris Langan which has not been reviewed by anyone (let alone a professor of Philosophy). Please explain that reference. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:600:515:6885:5447:AF16:28EF
- Hi there, IP User. The only edit I intended to revert was " That article on Chris Langan's webpage has an error.", as this is not the style of writing used by an encyclopedia. I have corrected this, and reinstated your other edits.
- Also, please remember to always sign Talk posts with four tildes (~~~~)
- Moosehadley 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. Thank you so much for kindly reviewing my edits. This definitely helps improve the article.. So very kind of you. :) :)
- - Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:600:515:6885:5447:AF16:28EF
Dear corporatist apologist
If you are too stupid to think that calling a union-busting firm what it is, then you are, quite frankly, too stupid to be trusted with a computer. I'll be glad to have a real conversation, right after you pull your head out of your ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:1180:315:990F:7D03:BC69:80DB (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view at all times, regardless of an editors personal opinion on a subject.
- Moosehadley 03:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- And "union-busting" is not neutral? What would a fascist like you prefer, "Freedom loving Murican company?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:1180:315:990F:7D03:BC69:80DB (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Moosehadley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Big thank you for the barnstar. That's a nice way start to the new year. And it makes up for that warning I got a few weeks ago for getting a bit trigger-happy with Rollback... Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
- It happens to all of us, sometimes you just get into that mindset where you've seen so much vandalism you're just itching to hit that Rollback button again.
- Thanks for the beer, happy new year!
- Moosehadley 01:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
/* 1980s and 1990s */
Not sure why you reversed my edit? I added an 1980s detroit rock band to the correct areas of the site and included a like to their (Rook) site on youtube. Couldn't be more direct? Please put is back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmmusic (talk • contribs) 03:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it because I felt it did not meet the guidelines described in Wikipedia:Video_links.
- It may be a better idea to put your link in the Music_of_Detroit#External_links section.
- Moosehadley 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggle
Hi! I just want to let you know that Huggle doesn't appear to be functioning correctly for you. You gave no warning when you use Huggle. I have the same issue when I use it. The only fix I know is to close and restart Huggle. -INeedSupport- (Happy New Year!) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing it out.
- Looks like you've been following my rollbacks and posting the warnings, for that, thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it!
- I'll try restarting it.
- Moosehadley 20:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Your report
Why did you report my account yesterday? I did not even vandalize and you are making up false accusations. How is it vandalism to talk about Costco chicken, you tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaDiloman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- First I'd like to apologize for not posting the warning on your talk page, the anti-vandalism tool I use was malfunctioning and I failed to notice it never messaged you.
- The reason I reverted your edit was because you added commentary that is not befitting of an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information on this.
- Moosehadley 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)