User talk:72Dino

Got him again

He's editing from a library terminal. Might be time to step in and contact the library. PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Stumbled across one of your edits and just wanted to say hi. :) Dino246 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What good taste in usernames (and cars)! 72Dino (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tax Document from Vector Marketing

Hi 72Dino, I was going over the talk page for vector when I re-read that you had found a tax document for '09 regarding discussion on Vector's contributions to the charity fund. Could you please provide a link for my personal review of that Document? Phearson (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The annual Form 990 that tax-exempt organizations have to file with the IRS is a public document, but for me the easiest way to access the form was to sign up for a free account with GuideStar and then do a nonprofit search under the organization's name. When you get to the page for the organization there is a tab for a copy of the 990. 72Dino (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, please take this barnstar!

		The Special Barnstar
		For excellency in using public resources to locate public documents for interested editors. Phearson (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for the recognition and encouragement! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding the designer label to the infobox of Marisol Deluna. If I need additional assistance with future image posting, I hope you don't mind if I defer a few questions to you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I will be happy to help out if I can. 72Dino (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a quick question, yet an important one. Is there a template to add a list of the nonprofits projects (Such as a actor or artist posts their works for example) that she has created designs for. Most are non-traditional fashion outlets and would add insight to her work. Designs are on the company website, yet more were revealed in the edit history that were removed and also on the discussion page when this page was considered for deletion due to vandalism. Each would have a reference link added.

If not, can you suggest an article that may have an acceptable layout to follow?

It appears as if one editor will only allow two examples despite the attempts of editors to add more found online or mentioned in articles. I am yet to edit due to my concern that my efforts will also be deleted despite being encyclopedic and verifiable. I appreciate any help or guidance you can provide. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such template. I reviewed some of the edit history and discussions about the article, but wasn't quite sure where the examples were removed. There are certainly no rules limiting the number of works listed, although it should probably not be a laundry list of everything. I think some of the more notable examples, with a reference from a reliable source as you indicated, should be okay to list as long as it does not cause the article to become promotional. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion may be a resource for examples of articles that have such a layout. Sorry I couldn't be much help. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1 questions, 1 comment here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438740642&oldid=438735864 -- I am good with your edit here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642 OK, you say in your edit summary that "these links were removed from Student loan earlier as inappropriate for an encyclopedia," but that is incorrect -- the other editor, Petiatil, admitted here that his deletion was an accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petiatil&diff=438740768&oldid=438736402

However, these links were never removed earlier --maybe they should be removed now, but they weren't removed earlier, as you said in your edit summary -- other stuff was removed -- twice --once by a new editor vandalising the page, and again, on accident, by Petiatil --and both times they were fixed.

These are legitimate consumer advocacy groups addressing student loan costs and costs of higher ed -- what is wrong with these pages? Thank you for your input here. This page is being watched because of the earlier vandalism --by the other editor before Petiatil --so I hope to get other input -- and no offense meant or anything, but Ithink you're wrong -- on this new advocacy section, but I will seek the input and concensus of the community before proceeding.71.101.33.24 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I mis read your edit comment -- you said these were removed from 'Student Loan' -- not that article I edited -- you may be right -- I'll have to check it out.71.101.33.24 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with you disagreeing with me, that's part of Wikipedia. A good place to get some input from the larger community is at the Universities wikiproject. I think the article will benefit from other editors reviewing it. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Update -- I did look at the 'External Links' guidelines,m and also looked again at the 'Student Loan' page --and yes, though the links on the 'american student loan' page were not generally the ones you say were removed, yes you are right: Similar links were removed on the 'student loan' page -- but looking at the 'External links' policy, it would seem that the links I edited in are appropriate -- no offense, but I still disagree with you on this. Now, to the community to resolve this and get consensus --and I must go now to church -be blessed, my friend.71.101.33.24 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Picking back up, seeking community input, concensus, discussion, feedback, etc.

I responded here, now that I'm back from church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Pick_back_up_where_we_left_off 71.100.187.222 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumb Question

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438914336&oldid=438855298 "(double column refs, remove citation that is clearly not a reliable source)" I saw that you removed one of the several references that verified suicides relate somehow to student loans, but you left the others. What about that one you removed was objectionable? I looked at 'reliable sources' standard & can't distinguish the difference. Thanks!

PS: Cool trick on double columns -- I hope it isn't too 'wide' for folk with smaller resolution monitors (1024x768 for example)-- Wow! -it ISN'T too 'small' --somehow the computer or website 'adjusted' and even in 1024x768, it was OK.

Anyhow -- still confused on your edit above. LOL71.100.190.190 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are generally "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Self-published sources like a blog generally are not considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia. The other references may not meet that requirement either and if so should be removed. The one I removed caught my eye because it was so blatant. 72Dino (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the other sources (I have not gone through the actual source text, though). The Illinois Board of Higher Education, Chicago Sun-Times, NPR, and The News Tribune are generally considered reliable sources. The blog is not. 72Dino (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thx 4 yr feedback -- I'm not the author of that blog (read: no conflict of interest), and while it looks kinda like a blog, it seems somewhat like an unbiased news source --an Internet paper, if you will -and this guy seems somewhat of an expert --so, it is kind of like the NY Times' health, legal, or financial reporter saying something --not US Government official, but still like a news source we could trust. It seems reliable by the standard you lay out -- at least I'D trust it, and I'm no dummy. What about that comparison do you not like? Thx!71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no fact checking, peer review, or anything of the like as opposed to the other sources. If you still feel otherwise you can pose the question at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 72Dino (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

oops -- I didn't see your reply here - I had an 'edit conflict' -- so replying to both your above -- and this new post: :: Another thing caught *my* eye -- this writer is only claiming that he got a letter from someone contemplating suicide --not something I'd doubt -- now, on the other hand, if he said that a certain legal proceeding was, say, impossibly for student loan debt (such as how bankruptcy proceedings are NOT legally possibly for students in crisis LOL), THEN, yes, I'd agree that he'd better ante up his credentials --like say, a JD, or MBA degree --or then, maybe it would require him to be a 'legal' or 'education' reporter for a 'big' newspaper, but this claim here does not seem to require such credentials, so I wonder at how you think this news source is not reliable. (gut check: Do you think this writer's lying to us? THAT is the final check -- and if you can't look your friends/family in the eye and honestly say you believe he's lying, then I think he would have to be accepted as reliable --according to the standards Wikipedia laid sown above) -- not trying to argue or be contentious, but just don't wanna miss any reliable sources to verify our claims here. -- your thoughts?71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

OK, I posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=438964125&oldid=438963127 as you asked. (-:/ -- 71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what the community determines. Thanks for taking it there. 72Dino (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome -and thank *you* for your part.71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oops! sorry -- I see a few edits of mine you reverted --in the College tuition article(s) -- I had forgotten (or not known) that if a link is in a Wikipedia article, then it need not be cited in the 'See Also' section -- my apologies -- Big Time -- Major League! (I personally would prefer these 'see also other Wiki' links stay in, but if they're in the article, it's 'close enough for government work,' and will be OK with me. (Not that my opinion matters, but just saying, no hard feelings or argument on these small points.)71.100.178.19 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter links

Hi, I saw you readding some of these links that were correctly removed according to our WP:EL guidelines. Links to Twitter and Facebookare generally not acceptable and generally do not meet WP:ELOFFICIAL unless they are the only such "official" sites we can find. We should only link to the best "official" links of a subject, not every single webpage owned by an article's subject. Before readding these sites, please check to see if there are any better official weblinks out there that can be used in their place. ThemFromSpace 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:ELOFFICIAL, especially the sentence "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites," is that my readding those sites met the guideline. I readded official Facebook and Twitter only if the official website did not contain links to those social media sites. I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but I don't see where that guideline states that we can link to social media sites if "they are the only such official sites we can find." It looks to me like we can add other official sites if they add unique content (like social media) and are not linked to the main website (I reverted myself on one that had such links). 72Dino (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But we should also only link to the best official websites. If there is a good official website, why link to a Twitter feed or Facebook profile of an individuals everyday thoughts? What encyclopedic value do they add to our articles (unless an individual is famous because of a Twitter or Facebook page). ThemFromSpace 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content of the website and social media site is the same, then I agree with you. I also agree if it is somebody tweeting what they had for breakfast. However, many organizations use social media to provide unique content in a more timely way than their website. I think either including or excluding official social media sites should be on a case by case basis. 72Dino (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Impressive! I was doing a little experiment for an MBA course to test Wikipedia's credibility and response to "vandalism". I apologize for wasting your time but I must say, you guys are quick. Harrymc7x (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador

Hi 72Dino, I saw your message on the Aventador talk page and have updated the article as appropriate. Zarcadia (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Odd about the McLaren, too. 72Dino (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello 72Dino! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your tidy-up of Undie Run

Hi 72Dino - very much appreciated! ---Shirt58 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good job on having the article so well referenced. 72Dino (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoe Crosher

72Dino, thank you for your responses to Jobpiston's edits on the Zoe Crosher article. Full disclosure: I'm the subject's spouse. As a relatively experienced Wikipedia editor, I've left some advice on Jobpiston's talk page. Since I'm in conflict of interest myself I'd appreciate if you or someone else could take a look at what I wrote and, if appropriate, offer a second opinion. Thank you! – Miranche ^T C 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on Jobpiston's talk page were very appropriate and well said. I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, but it takes time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia (at least it did for me). I'm hoping that, with your knowledge of Wikipedia and (obviously) the article subject, the article can be a source of helpful information for the reader. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Blankfein

Any idea on what a person could possibly do with $54 million? Nice that he said he was doing God's work. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it would be a great problem to have. I need to figure out how to get a job like that. 72Dino (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

WikiProject Stanford University

Hey, I've been working on creating WikiProject Stanford University. As a primary editor of the Stanford University article, I figured this might be relevant to you :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

LA Auto Show

Sure, you're welcome to add photos. There are already four photos at the top of the article, so unless you had one you felt was significantly better than those, you should just add one or two photos to the 2011 section - preferably of the new introductions. WP:CARPIX has some guidelines on submitting car photos. And no, I'm not going, I'm just excited about all the introductions. :) --Vossanova ^o< 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral

Hi, I noticed you are an established editor who has recently been involved with editing Crystal Cathedral. There is currently a discussion going on on Talk:Crystal Cathedral regarding the wording on the article and would like another opinion on the matter, if you can. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

your last edit at missionary (lds) article

Hello, you asked me to discuss external link www.lds4u.com here. I found the link by googling "lds missionary rules" and I find the link to be useful and very informative. So what is your opinion --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You should discuss the edit at the article talk page at Talk:Missionary (LDS Church)#External lds4u.com link repeatedly being added. An editor has already started a discussion on that external link. 72Dino (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, but I differ...

Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, in the past when I had trouble with vandals and trolls, but I differ on your last edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=461536456&oldid=461530029#Lack_of_consumer_protection

You took out this part: "and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can pay back," with the explanation that "POV not supported by references from reliable sources," however, you left in this part here:

"Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the student avoid default."

And, I agree with your assessment to leave this part in here.

But look closely at the 2 excepts, Dino:

They're basically saying the same thing... the 2nd excerpt says the lender sees that it's profitable for the student to default.

The 1st excerpts says that the lenders know the student can be more easily victimized without said protections -- don't you agree they say the same thing (in slightly different language)?

So, if you leave in the 2nd excerpt, I would ask you put back in the 1st one.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is correct in reporting this theory -- it really is true: That theory exists -- and the reason that's OK is because, whether the theory is correct or not, the facts underpinning it are cited -- and so we're just reporting the news. (Lastly, you and I both know this theory is probably correct in many instances --human nature being what it is). -- But, in short: There really are facts, and also, there really is this theory based on the facts -- both are true, and both should be reported.

What do you think?71.100.189.115 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded at the article talk page. 72Dino (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I replied to you there.71.100.179.96 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome

I sometimes feel presumptuous deleting revisions without being asked, but I really hate leaving any record of garbage like that.--Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Corona_del_Mar_High_School_-_Controversies_section

Thanks for the info. 72Dino (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

1. Phearson (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and a merry Christmas to you, too. 72Dino (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That was fast...

Category:Mayors of Huntington Beach, California How did you do this so quickly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I live in Huntington Beach, so I know who the more notable mayors were. Thanks for setting up the category. 72Dino (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

== rocker (subculture)

Sorry, my inglish are bad, but I now, the rockers (ton-up boys)in the 1960s were commonly referred to asgreasers or grease as an insult by your rivals mods, and Mods never been called as rocker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisehelp (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that and the article already mentions that. The article is not saying that the Mods were called Rockers. Instead of continuing to put in your edit and have it reverted, I recommend you discuss what you are trying to say on the article talk page here: Talk:Rocker (subculture). If you continue to add in the edit as it is, it is very likely that an administrator will block your account. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BOMI edits

Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Three_Witnesses. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. 72Dino (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on the Three Witnesses page. It is appalling the state of that page and as we know who it is the product of, it is clear that a conflict of interest is being violated imo. Please chime in on the talk page under that new section. I would like to see the continual disruption stoped first so that my edits are not for naught. It's apparent that a certain "contributor" over there hasn't the slightest notion of what the purpose of the wiki is. If you can first help in that regard it would be most helpful so we can get back to balancing a highly flawed page.BOMC (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I have been on Wikipedia for over five years and have over 19,000 edits, but I have stopped editing certain articles and have even taken articles off my watchlist because of the combative approach and article ownership approach he uses. I may discontinue editing the Three Witnesses and David Whitmer articles in the near future, too. It's just not worth it to me. I wish you luck. 72Dino (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

== Citation ==

Sorry about the unclear edit summary on that one. My intent was not to remove the citation, just to move it. It was being used twice, once in the Lead, and once in the body of the article, so I wanted the citation to only show up in the body. I had cut it from the Lead (Ctrl-x) and my next step was to paste it into the Modern times section where it was being called. Between the cutting and pasting I got distracted responding to a query on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your edits are always well thought out, so I figured it had to be something like that. I appreciate the note here. 72Dino (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. That particular one wasn't extremely well-thought out. I should have done it in a single edit, but sometimes it's easier to edit the smaller sections one at a time, instead of trying to comb through the whole article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Occidental College

thanks.. not exactly positive how to use this site. it's just he's a well known guy in the finance world, on CNBC all the time, thought he was a good guy to put on notable alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.61.56 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Lists of alumni, etc. get rather large so generally only those who already have an article about them are included. He may be a good person to write an article on. I recommend continuing to edit articles. If you're like me there will be a lot of trial and error at first. Then, read Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)