Open main menu

Contents

Catholic Laitinen Welcomes You!Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia! I am Catholic Laitinen, a veteran editor, reviewer, and rollbacker on the English Wikipedia. Below are some links that may be useful to you, and I strongly recommend you review them before making any major or controversial edits. If you have any questions, feel free to consult me at my talk page. Thanks for your contributions, best wishes, and I hope you decide to stay and edit Wikipedia regularly.

 
Wipe your feet before entering!


~LL~ (talk) (requests) 16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Grace digitalEdit

Haha, I was just doing that, but slightly more cautiously. Well done !! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it was quite a severe trim of the article, but then it was almost wholly unreferenced spam. If you think I was a little too overzealous, please feel free to put stuff back. It's quite a surprise that article and the editor who worked on it went under the radar for so long. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonono, I'm not going to change a thing. I hate promotional marketingspeak like that. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

List of American police officers killed in the line of dutyEdit

Yeah I removed them from the list. Not really sure where they should go on that article though. Inexpiable (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In the 2015 list they are listed there though. The whole article is a mess tbh.
(ec) Nor I - and some of the other years do indeed have them too. I haven't seen whether or where that decision was discussed and made, and whilst I'm all for consistency, that had clearly already failed. I only stumbled over the changes by chance and have no opinion either way as to whether the guidance (which is anyway odd in the visible text of the article) is appropriate. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please approve upcoming film When Obama Loved OsamaEdit

Don’t delete this page all are Article is correct Aliya Pr (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot delete the page. I do not intend to comment on the AfD discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don’t Remove or Delete when obama loved Osama wikipedia pageEdit

Please consider our issue need help for this page when obama loved Osama wikipedia information required Aliya Pr (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The page has already been deleted.  Anchorvale T@lk | Contributions  01:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

World Series additionsEdit

Hello and good evening. I was using retrosheet at the bottom of each World Series game I was adding to. Isnt that a sufficient and legitimate source? I am a big fan of old-time baseball and all the facts I entered were correct and accurate. I spent 2 hours doing the additions because there was no commentaries about the games. I was one keystroke away from completing the additions. Can you put them back and maybe we can come to a compromise of what I should do? They were all accurate additions and in good faith. Can you get back to me? Thank you and have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:202B:EA83:A2F:B14C (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe retrosheet is considered a reliable source, but the problem I have is that I cannot substantiate what you have written from it. As an example, in 1925 World Series you added "This game had the most controversial "out" in World Series history. Earl Smith hit a ball into the center field bleachers, which Rice fell into the bleachers attempting to catch it". I can't see anything in http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1925/B10100WS11925.htm which describes that event, let alone assert it to be the most controversial in world history. Similarly, in 1940 World Series I cannot find any reference to confirm "Newsom won easily", etc. Have I missed them? Dorsetonian (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I have also used the The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia 1993 edition for a lot of those entries, I changed the wording a little bit,and that commentary was in that particular world series game commentary.I used the encyclopedia for basically all the additions I made today, Retrosheet very little.So I have to fess up, the Baseball Encyclopedia was my main source. I understand and get it.You have a great evening, and maybe I will modify certain additions that you point out to your satisfaction.Good night.2601:581:8500:949C:202B:EA83:A2F:B14C (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would expect that to be a reliable source though I can't find any reference to it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. If it is, I would still recommend that you check the guidelines on tone and, most significantly, ensure you include citations to the source you used. I don't have a particular interest or expertise in baseball - I came upon your edits when scanning all recent changes - so probably cannot advise beyond that. I'd suggest getting involved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball if you plan to specialise in that subject area, and visiting the Teahouse and Help desk if you have more general questions. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited APL (programming language), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Sometimes its better to ask for the page to be protected than to ask for a block/checkuser of the ips that vandalize the page or add borderline dubious things to it. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I came to that conclusion as well - I subsequently did that also. The IPs are probably stale now anyway; I'll add a comment to the Sock report. Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your tagging, and we may have a common problem.Edit

I probably did go over-the-top in my tagging of the "List of breakfast drinks", and I'm absolutely fine with your removal of the questionable ones.
But, take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 subsequently removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_drinks&action=history
I've reverted back to your revision, - but I fear that NorthAmerica1000 might blow a gasket on it.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As your tag additions were reverted it would probably have been better to start a discussion on the talk page rather than simply replace them. FWIW, I believe the lead is particularly bad and really does need rewriting, and clearly the lack of focus was a recurring complaint at the most recent AfD. If the tags get taken away again I would strongly advise against getting into an edit war about it. Indeed, if the article continues to bother you I would take it off your watchlist and move onto something more constructive. Northamerica1000's opinions are as valid as yours or mine and even though we have disagreed with them on this article I think it is far less a tragedy that a "bad" article is kept than a "good" article is deleted. In other words, in general Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusionism. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

IotaEdit

Why did you delete the iota(miota) head in disamguation of iota? Jitheshpnambiar (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it was deemed non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology). Dorsetonian (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It was just simple fact I was adding. Its all over the internet.No advertising or anything,then why? U TELL ME. Is IOTA_(MIOTA) not a type of cryptocurrency? and is it not based on DAG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitheshpnambiar (talkcontribs) 12:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My mapsEdit

You deleted all my maps, after when wiki accepted it. I opend for watching, what a problem. And you wrote "Remove meaningless chart". Who are you that you think it's meaningless chart? Do you know, that after "Remove meaningless chart" i can write a complaint? I will, required, If you won't stop LandRussia (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

yeah, lets talk with administrative of wikipedia. I will listen, what will they say LandRussia (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I posted an explanation on your talk page before you wrote this. As you deleted that, I am posting it back here. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The population maps you are adding are give no indication of where or when the data originated (see WP:V), nor do they explain what they mean. For example, in this chart, yellow apparently means "<70". <70 what? Dorsetonian (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dorsetonian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dorsetonian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop threatening and bullyingEdit

Please don't leave any more bullying threats on my talk page. See the history of the editor engaged in revenge editing before making any further abusive comments on my talk page. Thank you.50.254.145.83 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever your history with this editor, a copyvio is a copyvio and is never acceptable, nor is the series of personal attacks you are making in your edit summaries. Desist. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Hello - I'm writing from an IP you left a message on. Apologies if this is the wrong place, but where can I report that this IP, specifically, is a public IP (it's from the Martin Luther King Jr. Library on the San Jose State University campus? I know several vandals have used this IP (judging from the new messages when I surf Wikipedia). Thanks for any help - 130.65.254.5 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's already highlighted in the yellow box at the head of the talk page. If you want to disassociate yourself from those vandals you could create an account; you can still be as anonymous as you wish to be. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Rhys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Franz KlainsekEdit

As you tagged the Franz Klainsek page for deletion per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright violations (and it was a mess), I thought you might want to participate in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Klainsek discussion. – Athaenara 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will look at it later. 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RE:Edit

The edit talk in London Independence was me. But it did not get any attention. So I rewrote it. Unfortunately I find the article to be very disconcerting and false because it shouldn't have the title of "London Independence" when there was never an official referendum taken place, nor has there been any desire to do so. This has been taken out of context purely because London overwhelmingly voted to remain as part of the EU. That does not mean it wants to secede. Whoever wrote this article needs to re-write it. No one has said that it would be "inevitable" as I noticed. There is simply no citation to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:C463:23F2:6B6F:58DC (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page as it was. I have no real opinion on the validity of the page but if you feel your comments are not being seen you could place tags on the main page to direct people to the discussion page. See e.g. WP:DISPUTETAG, WP:CLEANUPTAG. Dorsetonian (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance the title could be changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:CC55:DD44:7705:5F9A (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You can request this at WP:MOVEREQ. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:9014:1A96:5598:392D (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits for Michael Cremo / VimanasEdit

The wording you reversed is not original research. Several Wikipedia articles centered on pseudoarchaeology cite these articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pausing to discuss. In general my concerns are centred around WP:NPOV and WP:V. In some instances such as in David Hatcher Childress where "lost cities such as Atlantis" has been replaced with "pseudoarchaeological and pseudoscientific topics such as [[Atlantis]", it also feels far less illuminating. Clearly the places you have done this are in the area of non-mainstream, pseudo-scientific views, but that is already apparent, is it not? Dorsetonian (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am going offline and will not object if, having read this, you disagree and revert my reversions. Obviously if others also revert you then it will be appropriate to go to the relevant talk pages and discuss. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience wordingEdit

(Created a new section since it seems to be a slightly larger discussion than just the previously mentioned topics.)

Thanks for discussing as well. I don't believe the edits I've made really fall under "original research," as what I'm doing is tying together Wikipedia articles which often already refer to each other and to related articles. I've had edits like these on related pseudoarchaeology topics survive a lot of attention and vandalism over the last few months without the suggestion of original research coming up.

I'm also off, and don't intend to reverse your changes; if another editor comes along to look at those topics, they have both of our points of view to pick from. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

List of rock and roll performersEdit

I see you removed a large number of edits by an anonymous editor on the list of rock and roll performers. I think a lot of those entries were correctly removed, but a lot of them seemed valid too. Do you think you could go back and more selectively remove the ones you don't think are rock and roll performers? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the WP:BURDEN is on the person putting them there to establish that they belong. That editor has today put a load back and just reviewing the last one - Carly Simon - I see no improvement: no-one would associate her style with the genre described at Rock and roll. And yet the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seems to have in it many artists (albeit not Carly Simon) that seem out of place too, so who knows any more? The term seems to be too vague (or, at least, too much abused) to be meaningful and the article is totally pointless as a result. I'm not sure I can, or want, to contribute to it any more. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Jay Foreman (businessman)Edit

The content you removed seems to have reappeared. I've removed it again. PamD 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and for letting me know. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

UPS delivery vans in fact have no air conditioning.Edit

Read on to see that they don't: https://www.google.com/search?q=ups+trucks+no+air+conditioning&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS851US853&oq=ups+trucks+no+air+conditioning&aqs=chrome..69i57.6460j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Several sources in that link say the same thing.

What else should I do to the United Parcel Service article to further reinforce that these trucks have no air conditioning?

And what is "soapboxing" anyway?

I'm messaging you here because the 3RR guideline that you posted says to bring the issue to one's talkpage in order to reach a solution that has consensus. --172.124.128.102 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Re WP:SOAPBOXING: you are linking to an article about a petition, which can be interpreted as a means of promoting that petition. I removed the comment because of that, because I was not convinced it's that relevant an observation in an article about UPS the company, and because the claim was too sweeping - you referred to all delivery trucks of a company that operates worldwide, with a reference only to the US part of the operation. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Dorsetonian".