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.
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- What Wikipedia is not
- How to create a Wikipedia article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- 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)
- 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 Remove or Delete when obama loved Osama wikipedia pageEdit
- The page has already been deleted. 01:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletionEdit
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)
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.)
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)
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)
- 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 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
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
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
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.220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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 - 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 22.214.171.124 (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)
(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 126.96.36.199 (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)
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. --188.8.131.52 (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)