User talk:Mosmof - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Markeeeto (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 28 July 2015 (New talk section: Hello mosmof). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:24, 28 July 2015 by Markeeeto (talk | contribs) (New talk section: Hello mosmof)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

NYCFC

Shouldn't the team nick name come from the fans? Because that's how teams get their nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only1bigc (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but the smurfs did come from the fans. You don't get to pick your own nickname, someone gives it to u. The surfs was given by all the other mls teams, because of their light blue smurf like shirts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeds Unit (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 June 2015‎

@Leeds Unit Wherever it came from, it needs to be verifiable with an independent, reliable secondary source. And we generally don't include pejorative nicknames, like the one included, in the infobox. Please remember to cite sources for your edits. Mosmof (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Robbie Rogers page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool FC

Hi Mosmof, Could i just inquire about the reasons as to why you constantly remove my contributions to the 'rivalries' section Liverpool FC page? You did say it was my POV but It's actually a factual account complete with (though incorrectly inserted) cited reference. The overall section on the rivalries is miss leading to the casual reader as it is, as there really should be a 'citation needed' insert at the end of the "rivalry intensified after Manchester Utd became the first English team to win a European cup" line. To say Liverpool's four European cup wins coincided with their domination of English football is a fact bore out by their Honours list in the same article aswell as my referenced add-on. I do think the overall section is miss leading to the casual reader without it.Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for leaving a message. My thinking is that "domination" is a little bit of a peacock term and the reader would be served better by simply stating the numbers (and looking at that passage again, I should probably edit the part about Manchester United "dominating" English football as well.

FYI, this edit broke the formatting on the page - when you have a line break followed by a period, it messes up the rest of the line.

Again, thanks - let me know if my latest edit works for you. Mosmof (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the prompt response and the appropriate re-editing.Also apologies for the mix-up with the format. Just one more point, i do also feel the line mentioned about the rivalry intensifying in the 60's after Manchester Utd's European cup win is also a little dubious and slightly miss-leading to the casual reader. I do feel if this is the case then it either needs a citation or i could reference claims that the rivalry actually intensified in the 1970's after Liverpool started their successful period with their first of their eleven league titles in that period. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Coop City

Coop City is not a police force, just look at their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.236.207 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing indicating they're not a private police force. In fact, their badge features the words "N.Y. POLICE" and their Twitter handle is titled "Co-Op City Police" and its website features a logo with the word "community policing at its finest". So yeah, if we go by their own description, CC Public Safety is indeed a police force. Mosmof (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding citing sources

What is the best way to cite information if it is from a book, which I can't find as an e-book to be read online? Is it better off just to leave off wiki if that's the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.227.50 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 January 2015‎

Books are certainly welcome - you can read more about citing sources at WP:CITE (this section will show you what information to include), and the {{Cite book}} template is useful for organizing the source information. Also, sometimes (but not always), you can use books.google.com to link to specific pages in books. Hope this helps. Mosmof (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pablo Aimar

Hi there MOSMOF, from Portugal,

I have started a WP:FOOTY I discussion, I am 99,99999999999% sure that what you and the other user are doing in this article is wrong (if you link a WP article more than once it's overlinking, period), but let's wait for more opinions.

Also, if you two were correct, why wikilink only River Plate and not the other club from Malaysia? And I don't see the need to write "free agent" in the introduction because the box will already tell you that. Don't worry I won't remove it again, a bit tired of pointless edit wars, it stays your way.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out you are right about WP:OVERLINKING, though it's a guideline that seems to be rarely put into practice. As for your point about "free agent" not being needed because it's in the infobox, the problem is that if you apply your logic, we'd be removing a lot more information from the lede that's redundant with the infobox - name, date of birth, clubs he's played for, etc. That the lede duplicates a lot of the information isn't a problem - the point of the introduction is to summarize the content in the article body, and the infobox just gives an overview of the player's career. They serve different, albeit overlapping, purposes. Mosmof (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liverpool F.C. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Total titles won (1871–present)]] have won more European trophies than any other English team]] with five ], three ] and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miami River (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) 09:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

This is despite me clearly putting in a credible independent source that contradicts him? Kingjeff (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You read the message and understand how WP:3RR works, yes? And your source and the IP's source aren't necessarily contradictory. Mosmof (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course I do. But I don't consider his source a credible source. Kingjeff (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Then you have a disagreement that's not going to be solved by edit-warring. Mosmof (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That was actually going to be my next post on the ip's talk page. Since, you're online, do you mind if you look at this AfD? Kingjeff (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made an edit which uses both sources - Bild (or at least people translating from German) calls it "demotion", HSV says "he's getting extra match action". The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

As for the AfD, yeah, I think it's a clear delete, though it looks like whoever edited tried their best. Mosmof (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Stoudemire

Stoudemire has been officially waived, so everything is changed in the article – just like every other case. We don't have to wait until he "clears waivers". Once the team announces it, thats it. He is no longer with the Knicks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mike Wallace

I made the changes to the Mike Wallace page because someone vandalized it. An unregistered user changed a bunch of stats along with his 40 yd dash time. The career stats that I put in were accurate according to NFL.com, Yahoo, ESPN, etc. I'm going to undo your changes because his career stats are no longer correct. Nuttster99 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't tell that you reverted all of the IP editor's vandalism so I went back to the last version by an established editor. Sorry if that was in error. Mosmof (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for being so reasonable at Talk:MLS Cup. For that, you get the official sign of American soccer friendship. Achowat (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Minnesota United FC (MLS) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minnesota United FC (MLS) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minnesota United FC (MLS) 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Jensen

Is it OK to create a article about for example Jonas Jensen goalkeeper at Esbjerg fB? Ha has played several matches in the danish 1st division, and is currently playing for at team in the danish superliga, but hasn't played any matches in the superliga? Fodbold-fan (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

I was just going to warn User talk:208.81.212.222 and User talk:Mikemor92 about the edit warring that they've engaged in. I see that you warned the anon but not Mikemor92. At best, it's quite bias of you. At worst, shows a complete lack of integrity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, easy there. As far as I could tell, only the IP editor reached 3RR, and Mikemor was still at 2. If I counted wrong, then you can feel free to tag the other user as well. Though it would behoove you to tone down your rhetoric a notch. Mosmof (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

The topic has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cada mori (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I got the user page message. I will modify it.TorossianRonn (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Mosmof (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Broad Channel

I was being "unnecessarily hostile"? Yeah right. The 168th Street image is quite shaded in parts. The Broad Channel and the Far Rockaway image are more clearer and neat. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Think before you speak. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Pity you. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Another random member who doesn't even edit any of the New York City Subway articles, nor knows nothing about the New York City Subway itself. Yeah, thanks for your "unnecessarily hostile" comment at that sockpuppet's page. Sit down and watch how I myself edit. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bugging me repeatedly over a single comment? Just chill and leave me alone. Mosmof (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're pathetic. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is my final request - please stay away from my talk page and hounding me through edit summaries. Thanks Mosmof (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

here is your source

Skippypeanuts (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My fault for the block evasion, editing warring, personal attacks and harrassment

Look, I apologizes for all of my previous outbursts towards you and everyone else in general. I should have never been so incredibly aggressive and rude. I should have just solved things peacefully in the staff thread as well. I personally think that a New York City Subway image should show both front and side of each train line for the New York City Subway service articles, as I agreed with another remember of Misplaced Pages. Once my User:JoesphBarbaro account is unblocked, I promise to be civil and helpful and finally, stop edit warring and just simply take disputes to a talk page or the staff from now on. I also think the quality of the aforementioned images needs to be clear-looking quality too in addition. I'll talk more about that with the staff. Anyway, I'll return to honoring the terms of my block and I also promise I won't ever fight back again. I also just wanted to remove all of my outbursts so I myself don't look bad. That's why I wanted my previous conversation to be deleted in your talk page as well as the IP's talkpage in general, so that way, I don't look bad. It's fine if you don't forgive me though. I promise to change my behavior and treat everyone equally as a whole. 68.194.61.51 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note that this is my only IP address, as well as JB being my only account. I'm not going out of my way to abuse any multiple IP addresses and accounts. I've already undid the changes in the aforementioned New York City Subway articles. I promise. I'll now return to honoring the terms of my block. 68.194.61.51 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - I know it's easy to take things personally and get our emotions get the best of us (I've done it myself), and it's not easy to come out and say you were wrong, so I appreciate this. We're both here for the same reason, to improve articles, so no hard feelings. Cheers. Mosmof (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello .

Hello bud, look at this ..

they are all wrong by listing Bale most expensive player over Ronaldo..your link seems more updated so we need to change them I think .

I already suggested to move two of these articles to one article and we can work on it if you want .

User talk:GiantSnowman#question please

thank you.

Thanks - this might actually be a better discussion on WT:FOOTY. I can start a discussion there if you're not getting traction on those articles. Mosmof (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you get my email?

I sent it a few days ago, but you never acked. If not, I will send it again. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. Let me check my settings to see if my email is correct. Mosmof (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, try now. Mosmof (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look now.--Ravpapa (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

can you please tell us your opinion about this topic : https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen.27s_page_question_please_:

I see you active in sport pages so thought you might have an opinion about this . thank you Adnan (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cada mori

Our boy seems to have disappeared. Perhaps this is the time to restore the deleted section to the RT article? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hobestly, I don't know where we stood in the discussion, but I think it was still contested. Maybe reopen the discussion? Mosmof (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Go for it/ --Ravpapa (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Great Logic !

		The Socratic Barnstar
		well said, you have really explained it perfectly Adnan (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Minnesota Stadium logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Minnesota Stadium logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Johncooper.jpg

Thanks for the housekeeping at this file; it was late at night when I noticed the previous version was a blatant copyvio of press photography at Cooper's trial and so I didn't use my commonsense and mark it for speedy then upload to a different file name. Sorry for creating extra work for you, but at least we will still get to the desired outcome of removing the non-free image. Keri (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keri No worries - the image happened to come up on my watchlist. Mosmof (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Template:New York Knicks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Corkythe hornetfan 07:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The user is engaged in clear vandalism (replacing "Linsanity" with the hoax "Fieldsanity") with a misleading edit summary - 3RR doesn't apply in cases of obvious vandalism, does it (I could be wrong about this, obviously)? And it appears that the user is a sockpuppet of blocked user KO.2 (see edits , , ). Mosmof (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about this, you can remove it. You're right, per WP:NOT3RR#3 (socks) and #4 (vandalism). I just noticed an edit war going and I was tired of seeing it. If they are a sock, I hope they get blocked, or at least for disrupting Misplaced Pages. This edit summary is a bit concerning, wouldn't you say? It shows they just go blocked, too. Corkythe hornetfan 07:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for the response. I probably should've just started a sock investigation. I'll put up a request anyway, since the block is only temporary. Mosmof (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

clearly doesnt meet criteria for deletion

the article Steve Gatena substantially differs from that which was previously deleted.--JumpLike23 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jumplike23: You're right (I think), though the issues from the last deletions are still there, i.e. dependence on non-independent and self-published sources (the Forbes "contributors" are not subject to Forbes' editorial process). Mosmof (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Florida Gators women's soccer players

Hey, MOSMOF. I saw that you were chewing on the Kat Williamson article, and then noticed that she was a University of Florida alumna -- and that she was mis-categorized under the generic parent category, Category:University of Florida alumni, and not the sport-specific subcategory, Category:Florida Gators women's soccer players. I'm not a huge association football/soccer fan, but I am a University of Florida alumnus and I do try to improve, maintain and protect all of the articles for former Florida Gators athletes regardless of what sport they played. If you come across any other mis-categorized Gators soccer players, I would be grateful if you bring them to my attention. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized seeing your edits I didn't do a thorough job of going through the article. Thanks for catching that (and other issues). Mosmof (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello mosmof

Hello mosmof!

Hope you are doing fine . I am asking you if i can make changes to leo messi's article. I am a great fan of him and believe have alot of valuable information that I can add!

Feel free to contact me here or through my email : koko10_77@hotmail.com. Thanks, Markeeeto (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)