User talk:Mosedschurte/Archive 37

Please stop

Please stop responding in that WP:ANI thread. It is taking up tons of space and is not constructive. Please be civil and try your best to politely make your case for whatever content issues you feel are important during the mediation process. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Curt, I steered away from it, but Stephen J. Anderson just stated two out and out lies about me. Should I just not bother responding? This is the only thing I posted:

Re: "Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template." (Stephen J. Anderson)

This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. Nor did I add it to any article. The user simply made this up, and I wish it would stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research." (Stephen J. Anderson)

First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". It is almost all the New York Times, San Francisco Chronice, Reiterman, etc. You simply made this up. Again. Third, I've actually been the one to add several quotes putting the alliance facts in context and attempting to add to the possible motivations of those involved. Again, please stop fabricating charges about me and please stop the personal sniping. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I leave a message for him on this talk page? He's just making things up about me at this point, and I really don't know how to deal with it other than to correct the record.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not intended to be a forum for large ongoing back-and-forth threads and "sniping" as one of the parties said, back and forth. Everyone seems a bit heated and so it'd be best if you all took a breather and a step back and then try to discuss content instead of each others' actions. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I would never have responded to it, except that it was about me personally, so I didn't know where else to respond except the spot of the fabrication.

If you think it best that I no longer reply there, I will stop altogether.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I'd say it would be prudent to just stop and let the process play out in another forum more focused on proceeding forward hopefully with an amicable compromise about what content to include/not include in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The attempt to add to the Milk article appears to have opened up a huge can of worms in terms of getting certain users extremely stirred up. I almost wish I would have never attempted any improvements on it at all at this point. Some of the vehemence of the responses have been bizarre, although this is just my opinion of course.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'd just looked at Stephen J. Anderson's link, and I did add names to the Template, which was in May when I didn't even know what a Template was. I was almost certainly attempting to add them to a category or see also list at that time. I would correct my own comments about Stephen J. Anderson's comment (he was correct about my name adds), but I don't want to edit anything on the ANI page per your instructions.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah just give it a break and step back for a bit. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologized to him on his talk page instead. I was wrong.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You could explain yourself somehow in your userspace or on your user talk page perhaps. At this point I highly recommend a break from wiki for a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raven (book)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raven (book), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven (book). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Keeper ǀ 76 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination, apologies! Keeper ǀ 76 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...

I think you did a very good job for a newcomer :-) Keep editing! :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Tell me: am I terrible mediator? :-p

Thanks. I really didn't think I did so well after ticking off a few pretty experienced editors (Moni3 and SandyGeorgia who wasn't in the mediation). My initial approach was pretty lousy.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jones stuff

I worked a little on Jonestown, removing extra spaces and removing the brackets around dates. That is deprecated now and the autoformatting is being discontinued. (Autoformatting set the way the dates were viewed based on your preference settings: 19 September 2008, September 19, 2008, etc.) I have a little macro that I used to do it and in the next couple days, I'll run the other Jones related articles through it to fix any of those brackets, etc. I won't change much of any text, unless I notice a glaring grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. Thought I'd let you know so you won't wonder what was going on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've been kind of manually removing date brackets when I run across them.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the other two main articles (Peoples Temple and Jonestown) about renaming the Timothy Stoen article. I'd urge you to retain the name as it is. The article has a wider scope than just the custody battle; it covers a lot of Stoen involvement before and after and leaving it as named allows for that. You might want to take a look at WP:NAME, which covers naming conventions. I also wanted to let you know I submitted Peoples Temple and Jonestown to the 0.7 page for consideration. Neither of those articles are included in any projects or work groups whose articles were covered in the analysis and I think at present, they are perfectly suited for inclusion as companion pieces for Jim Jones. That's not to say they will include them in this release, but it will help secure their place in the next one. I was aware that the anniversary is coming up in a couple months. As that time draws near, the amount of vandalism will increase. There is a test bot that has been running to help watch for vandalism on high profile articles. I may bring that up to the bot owners if I can figure out who that is. If the vandalism gets to be too much, I'll be glad to quickly request page semi-protection to keep anonymous IPs from editing for a period of time. This happens frequently on high profile articles. I recently asked them to semi-protect Johnny Depp and Charles Manson (strange pair, huh?). I'll be working on those brackets, etc., later today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on the Stoen name change after I thought about it anyway. I'm thinking about adding more Concerned Relatives material to that article, then eventually perhaps creating a new Concerned Relatives article.

Johnny Depp vandals? I have a feeling we'll get some conspiracy theorists back on the Peoples Temple pages, though the more recent movies (Life and Death in Peoples Temple and Paradise Lost) might have put a crimp in those guys. 25+ year old texts from Mark Lane and the old Soviet regime might still resonate with some crazies.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Depp vandals are the easiest. "He's sooooo sexy!" "Depp sucks!!" While I wouldn't doubt the conspiracy theorists will pop back up, I'm thinking of the more mundane vandals like the ones who pop in to tell the world what sick creeps Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are and how they should burn in hell. Oddly enough, the Manson vandals are more like fanboys. In any case, I've had the articles watchlisted for a long time and try to address what are real vandals as well as the questionable edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have other articles you want me to run through my program, let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK congratulations!

On 25 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raven (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Congrats on the article! Alansohn (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. The book's also a great read.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this one. I will improve it over time. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Today's Jim Jones talk

I thought I'd explain briefly if it seemed I was being curt with the poster. I looked over his other talk page postings and saw that his main purpose to date on WP has been to start non-consequential arguments with no relevant purpose other than to argue. I usually check those things before I respond to something a new poster has brought up. He seems to be an antagonizer and has only edited the Amway article, which turned into a huge issue with little outcome, and once or twice on cults. I decided that if his posts had no specific suggestion except to argue, I was going to cut it off before it filled the page too much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked. I have a feeling we're going to get a lot of drive by commentators over the next few months.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Would you like to open a comment on the Jonestown or any others to establish a consensus that trivia, pop culture and pop media sections are inappropriate, irrelevant and unfeasible? I'm sure we could muster support for that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it as a general matter, but there must literally be 1,000 Jonestown and "drink the kool-aid" references in TV and movies alone. 90% of the article would be pop culture references.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, some articles have those sections and some do not. Wikipedia doesn't encourage them and the guidelines urge that any really relevant pop culture items should be incorporated into the main body. Personally, I don't like them in articles about tragedies, murders, and the like. To me, trivia tends to trivialize the event and take the focus from the actual event. It would be much easier to point to a talk page consensus that determined that such a section in the Jonestown (or Jim Jones or Peoples Temple) article is non-productive, inappropriate and unfeasible. It wouldn't be difficult to come to that conclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Leo Ryan

Let's keep both cites, can't hurt to have 2 cites at the end of a sentence. Also, please don't undo my formatting change - I have worked on standardizing/collapsing the "reiterman" cites so they do not appear numerous times in the References section, and I will eventually be redoing that with {{citation}}/{{harvnb}} - see The General in His Labyrinth for an example of how that will look in the end. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that, for the moment, we've lost all of the Reiterman individual page numbers that I've cited for each event, aggregated them into one vague cited Raven ref and are just citing that ref.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Singer cite was wrong. The Cessna attack didn't happen first. The Otter attack happened, then the Cessna attack. That's per Vern Gosney now on three different TV documentaries. So I just grabbed the Raven "concurrently" language and dumped the incorrect Singer cite.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See what I did with the notes/references formatting for the article Don Harris? Just give me some time and I will do that formatting, and retain all the individual page numbers at the individual cites later. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, but by collecting them into one cite now (instead of waiting to do it when the Harvard Cite format is propagated) and losing all individual page cites now, to get them back later (to look like the Harris article), you're going to have to go back to all of the prior revision histories, find where those individual page cites were, get the right page numbers for the right sentence and then make Harvard cites for them at the appropriate spot.

Seems like you could save a lot of effort by just waiting until the Harvard cites are propagated before wiping out the existing individual page cites.

I'm not sure what is gained right now by losing those page number cites at the proper spots.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if the Singer cite was accurately stated before (Cessna attack first as possible cue), it's wrong now (the sentence now says they were concurrent), so it should be dumped from that sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. Just pointing out some issues with the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes, please let me know if I got any page ranges wrong in the Harvnb notes. And also if the Singer ref is no longer needed or is a dup ref at the end of that sentence to a more comprehensive source, feel free to remove it, sorry bout that. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Talk:Jim Jones

Don't let this anonymous poster pull your chain too much. From what I can see, he's mostly just wanting to argue about this. Don't waste too much energy on it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Purposeful censoring of Valid source Source in Seductive Poison

I've tried to discuss the matter, but you don't seem to want to engage in constructive discussion.

Given your comments on the issue (which themselves violated Wikipedia policy) and repeated purposeful reverts adding an unreliable source, I will be forced to take this to ANI (where you'll likely be blocked) if you keep this up.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If your complaints have that much weight and you have enough time to continue meddling with my edits, than I guess that's what you'll have to do. My2sense2wikip (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful edits to the article Rick Ross (consultant). Cirt (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have some cake

Have some chocolate cake!

Care to enable your email? Cirt (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get into that email box to enable emailing and I'm having problems. Let me see if I can fix them.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Mosedschurte, this is to let you know that the events in the Rick Ross article that you were actively involved in yesterday have been submitted for community scrutiny on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_war_in_Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen466 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Result = "no vio". Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I've been out for the last few hours and had no idea.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Gallery 03c-JimJerryBrown.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gallery 03c-JimJerryBrown.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:JonesMondaleMmoscone.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JonesMondaleMmoscone.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonestown. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

You are in an edit war. You continue to undo edits that are made in an effort to cleanup the article. If the sentence is in the summary with a reference it does not need to be duplicated in the article with the same exact words, reference and wiki-linking.

Perhaps you fail to see that my edits are not made in a malicious attempt to vandalize the article but rather to eliminate confusion and unnecessary duplication. When I first looked at the article yesterday I noticed the comment about largest loss of life prior to 9/11. Immediately I noticed that statement was not referenced, so I added the {{fact}} tag. I then noticed, after your revert, that the same exact sentence did have a reference attached to it later in the article. I moved the reference to the initial statement so other editors would not mistakenly {{fact}} tag a statement (albeit, a duplicate one) that was already referenced and removed the duplication from the article.

You then reverted that edit to your previous version, back to square one. I then removed the duplication from the summary but left the statement and reference in the article, which you then promptly reverted.

If you review the past 500 edits, 16 of the 27 reverts were made by you (almost 60%), and an overwhelming 210 of the past 500 edits were made by you. Clearly you feel some sort of ownership over the content in this article, which, in reality, is a group project. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one owns the article, and your allegation is both ridiculous and violates Wikipedia policy on civility.

There is no edit war, despite some odd attempts to create one.

After your notation on an edit of a duplicate sentence, I changed it the sentence in the summary to comport with the comment you made. To be blunt, there was simply nothing wrong with a fact being in both the summary and the substantive portions of an article. In fact, it is in Wikipedia and helpful to readers. But I changed it to comport your edit comment just to avoid some odd edit battle. I also have done nothing to your de-wikilinking.

With regard to my edits, I have contributed a lot to the article because it lacked sourced information (and some rather odd non-sourced claims by conspiracy theorists and the like). Almost every addition I've made is from a major scholarly source or major newspaper. Several others have also since improved the article substantially. That you found the need to tabulate the percentage of edits is rather more telling about the tabulator than anyone else, but I don't think it's necessary to go farther with it.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Roberts

You can see my response 0n my talk page,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Now I understand where it comes from. By the way, I am aware of the fact of bomber guiding, my only objection was that I remembered for sure that that fact hasn't been mentioned by Roberts in that concrete article.

To my opinion, the sources provived by you are an additional proof that there were no substantial military collaboration between Germany and the USSR, although some coordination took place. The facts mentioned by you deserve mentioning as an exceptions of the rule, in a footnote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you use generally one source when you work on the WWII sections of the Stalin's article. Although generally good, this source contains some factual errors. I modified some of your edits of the Order 270 article because Roberts seems to misinterpret the order's text. Now the Order 270 accurately reproduce the original text, so it would be good if you modify corresponding Josef Stalin's fragment to make them consistent with the Order's text.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just doing Roberts now in these sections because he focuses most upon Stalin in particular (as opposed to the overall Soviet effort) during the war. I'll add some other sources later. Of course, right now, it's pretty much totally unsourced (except what I've added).Mosedschurte (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've just introduced several modifications into the "Questionable tactics" section, fixed some factual errors and added some sources. Feel free to reorganize it according to your style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I screwed up the dates on that pretty well. I've added back a few source cites, if they fit, and corrected a few minor English grammar issues.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work on the MRP article. It's looking much better, along several dimensions.radek (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. That was one of those articles that was a mess, but it had some interesting material, like the Before/After maps.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Please take care of Soviet–German relations before 1941. It is also messy, and I am semi-retired now. Colchicum (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Triple alliance negotiations

Dear Mosedschurte,

Before doing modifications of the section could you please discuss the version proposed by me. We have to come to agreement about that before doing considerable changes in the article.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

World War II

Due to the high profile of this article and the fact that the article was re-written last year in a major project, there's a consensus that all substantial changes to its content should be first discussed on the article's talk page. As a result, I've reverted your recent changes. Could you please discuss them on Talk:World War II? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit rusty, but still a start!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		By slapping this rusty and magically rotating piece of metal on your page I wanted to recognize and say "thank you" for your fantastic contributions in regards to German–Soviet treaties. Keep it up! Renata (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take that oxidized metal any time! Mosedschurte (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)