User talk:Mosmof/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Picture on Kaká page.

I say the picture on the Kaká page needs to be changed. I can get you one if you need it. Just tell me how I can give it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.140 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect info about international goals on Kaká page.

Most of the international goals on the Kaká page have something wrong in them. Either it's the date, the opponent, the competition and some of the goals didn't even take place! Please correct them using this - http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/scoreboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.140 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Update on 5wpr

I read the talk page but couldn't quite understand who was against whom in the 5WPR Agriprocessor story. I see it has been downplayed in the article, which now reads like a panegyric.

Do you feel, as I do, that this story should be in the lead? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward Mermelstein

I have renominated Edward Mermelstein for deletion, and have gone about it completely wrong. I have written my arguments in the archived discussion, where it certainly does not belong, and don't know exactly where I should have put it. You have a lot more experience at this. Can you straighten things out for me? You may also want to participate in the discussion. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been straightened out, thanks to Pgallert. here is the discussion. I am guessing you want to take part. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Files by Zwilson14

Hi Mosmof, I notice that you marked several images by Zwilson14 (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as copyright violations. I have deleted them and I also notice that this user has also had a bunch of other images previously deleted as copyright violations. I think it is therefore likely that other images he has uploaded are also copyright violations. Any chance you could take a look at the rest of this user's uploads to determine if they are also copyvios? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a few quick searches on other pictures, and I couldn't find matches for them on the web. But I think the fact that they're all low res, PNG (instead of JPEG) files of dramatically varying qualities tells me they should go up for WP:PUI as a group. As far as I can see, the user has given no indication of ownership beyond the generic "I, the creator" tag. At the very least, we should ask the user to provide more complete source information and to replace the PNG uploads with the original high-res JPEGs (if they exist). Is there a way to do batch nomianations for PUI, or do they go to WP:FFD? Mosmof (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I listed the images for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_19#Uploads_by_User:Zwilson14. I don't deal with image deletions very often, and haven't done this kind of mass nomination before, so hopefully it's done correctly. Your input at that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks for your help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag of File:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg

Could you be more specific with why you believe the image is replaceable? I have disputed the tag on the talk page of the article because the image is of a historical event which cannot be replaced. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at File talk:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg. --Mosmof (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Most successful" subjective?

There is no subjectivity about the claim that Manchester United is the most successful club in the history of English football. They have won the most trophies out of any English club, therefore they are the most successful. Same goes for the description of Alex Ferguson as the most successful manager. – PeeJay 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's "successful" as defined by your set of criteria. And who is to say a manager's success is judged by the number of trophies? Why rely on an adjective that doesn't have a set-in-stone metric when we can just say "Manchester United has won the most titles" and avoid it altogether? I don't see the need to complicate matters, even if ever so slightly. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome Concept Art Images

Can you tell me, or perhaps show me what licence template is needed to fix these issues? The images are obviously promotional material, so this should be quickly adressed with the right template. The problem is, I don't know which one. Since you seem to know, what template is the right? AnonymousAnimus (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much a licensing issue as it is not meeting WP:NFCC#8 (a non-free image has to meet ALL the non-free content criteria). Specifically, the image isn't a subject of critical (sourced) commentary or discussion, so the article doesn't really suffer if the image isn't included. --Mosmof (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

revert Ashley Martin and Liz Heaston

I reverted the image change on these two articles because the images, although non-free, have historical value and cannot be duplicated. It's not just a "placekick" on a field goal, but the first placekick of a field goal by a female in college football at that level.

I searched and could not find any reference to not using non-free images of historical value in policies. I of course could be wrong (and often am) so if I am, please let me know and show me the source. It might be worth some discussion on the non-free image use pages if the subject hasn't come up before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. "Historic" thing seems to confuse a lot of people. It's not talking about images that show events of historic value. It's about cases where the images themselves are of historic value, like the V-E Day kiss or Robert Capa's fallen soldier, where the photographs are subjects of extensive discussion and commentary. There's no such historical commentary of these women kicking footballs. Also, these uses fail WP:NFCC#8, since you stuck them in the infobox and there's no discussion, or even mention, of the images. If you still disagree, I'd be happy to discuss the images at WP:NFR. --Mosmof (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No need, it's not a big deal for me. It would be nice if we had a photo for the page, but there's more critical work to do methinks.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

K, thanks for the note. --Mosmof (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

REEBOK REVISION, IVERSON, DARIUS MILES, STEVE FRANCI, BRUCE JENNER

You stated that the links i posted as a source for reebok's endorsers were non-notable. How is it non-notable if the actual advertisement is at the link SHOWING the athlete/ entertainer endorsed the product? Then you stated that my other post was spam because I noted that they had a past endorsement and showed proof of it? Then you call one of my links a "vanity link to a sneaker blog" ? So one minute its spam then its a vanity link? All the links provided are proof of the endorsements, all the links provided are from a site that reputable, all the links support proof of the endorsement. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 November 2011‎

I'm saying that the publication is non-notable, and the way you're flooding the articles with defynewyork.com makes it spammy and apparently vanity (though in retrospect, I should've assumed good faith. It's mostly an issue with reliability of the source - we want sources to be established, widely recognized publications, and defynewyork doesn't seem to have that level of notability or traction that we like in our sources. --Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You said you want the source to be established and widely recognized well complex magazine (complex.com) had no issue citing me as a source http://www.complex.com/sneakers/2011/07/fila-the-cage-retro

sole collector had no issues either http://solecollector.com/Sneakers/News/FILA-The-Cage-2012-Retro/ neither did highsnobiety.com http://www.highsnobiety.com/news/2011/01/07/nike-air-presto-anti-fur-sneakers/ and countless other sneaker sites. Your obviously not familiar with the sneaker culture because my website has a large following of senior editors for major publications, footwear designers, store owners, etc. I think its safe to say that my website is widely recognizable. The reason my site was linked as a reference to Arnold. Paula abdul, Darius Miles etc. is because I'm the only sneaker site with these photo's (if other sites had better coverage on these topics then i would have cited them as references as i have in the past.) And if you think that the sneaker community is small and the information not valuable then you are very very wrong. Every day there are people researching the history of these brands with the most important info being who were the endorsers of their product. Not only does the consumer want to know but the brands themselves as some of these advertisements are very very rare. Also, I'm widely respected in the shoe community. If you google trethousandgt you would see that. And yes I do consider myself an expert on the subject but not sure if I should waste my time posting on here anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate you letting me know what the deal is, I don't want to waste my time posting information only to have someone delete all my work again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A few things - I'm not always going to respond to messages immediately. Even if I make minor edits, I don't always have the time to give detailed responses. There's no need to keep bugging me - I see when you leave a message.

Anyway, I think you're being pretty presumptuous about what I know or think. Straw man arguments are unhelpful. I don't doubt you when you say your site is respected. I use to run my own site myself and it got occasional mentions in larger publications and had (and still have). But that doesn't make my site notable enough to be a source, especially since I wasn't putting myself through a rigorous editorial process.

Also, since it's your own site, anything there would be considered original research - you want information that's been covered and reported by other (reliable) sources (also see WP:SPS).

Finally, a good source is one that says "Person x did y in year z". Pointing to an old ad and using it as "proof" that an athlete endorsed a product amounts to synthesis. If a piece of information is notable enough for someone other than you to care, then you should be able to find someone other than you (who's also notable) reporting it.Mosmof (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger for Reebok I stated he endorsed Reebok Shoes (agreed, I should have stated more info). However, the back link to the article clearly stated the year and also displayed the original commercial in addition to the original advertisement. How exactly does that add up to "synthesis." I didn't take the commercial and the advertisement and say Arnold wore Reebok's and performed better during his workouts, all I stated was that he endorsed the product which is what the advert and commercial clearly show. That is not synthesis. Also, you say "if a piece of information is notable enough for someone other than you to care, then you should be able to find someone other than you (who's also notable) reporting it." That doesn't hold true if this "notable person" doesn't knows its existence, and then, what happens if they cite me as the source when they finally do report it? Does that person then become someone who is no longer notable? If I understand you correctly, the bottom line is that my site is not reputable enough and therefore cannot be cited as a source for anything "new" that hasn't been seen before (to any Wiki pages that is) because my site is not a widely known publication such as the New York Post or LA Times (which is known in the industry to cross check facts)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To respond to your questions one by one:

• In the case of Arnold's ad, you're conveying information or a point that wasn't made by any other reputable source. That would be a textbook case of WP:OR.
• If a publication that qualifies as a WP:RS cites you as a source, then awesome, cite that publication that cited you. I don't see how that would be a problem. That means the information was deemed notable enough AND passed through the editorial layers of a more notable publication.
• Well, I wouldn't say "reputable". It's just that WIkipedia's process prefers information that's passed the muster of editorial oversight, hence more mainstream publications are preferred over self-published sources.

• Anyway, the bigger issue here is that it's *your* site which also happens to be a WP:SPS. --Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I'll abide by Wiki's rules and appreciate your attention to all my questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.5.71 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

...what made this edit vandalism? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That was by error - I was going to do a standard revert with explanation, but hit the vandalism button by accident. My apologies. --Mosmof (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense then, I thought I was missing something. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Florida State Seminoles helmet.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Florida State Seminoles helmet.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Paul

You mad son? CP3 is a Laker. I'll hit you up tomorrow to prove your revisions are foolish. GO LAKERS :p KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

a) I am not your son. b) I understand enough English to know the difference between "is" and "will be". kthxbye. --Mosmof (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They JUST SAID it's official on TV. ESPN NEVER acknowledges moves as OFFICIAL UNTIL they actually are. He's a Laker. I'll hit you up tomorrow and clown you. GO LAKERS KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the trade isn't official. That means the trade isn't done. Thank you for confirming what we already knew. --Mosmof (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I ain't worried. CP3 is a Laker. What's your team? Miami? Lulz. Nah, but for real you know it's legit, however I know Wiki's rules. I'm just pumped. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not worried! Whew! I'm a free agent - my team left town long ago and haven't picked up a team, so I'm pretty neutral about all this. And yes, I am well aware that shit be legit.--Mosmof (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hoodie article

Just so that I don't just revert your reversion of my information regarding hoodies worn by university students and have you revert it back could you explain why you got rid of my comments? Seemed like reasonable information to me! Cls14 (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that, you're playing the original research card. Yawn. Fair point but very pedantic. Guess I ought to try and find some references. Cls14 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question from User:TomParry123

Why did you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomParry123 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Change what? --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

don't be retarded

stop being an asshole. the dude who does the rap/hip-hop section on About.com is legit. don't be stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubanLinxBaby (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 December 2011‎

Oh, for sure, I'm sure he's totally legit. The problem is that an About.com ranking isn't that notable. It's a ranking that other notable sources discuss extensively, like the Billboard charts or the AP ranking. It's a ranking that nobody outside of about.com and its readers care about, and not considered a definitive ranking. --Mosmof (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)