User talk:Hirolovesswords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DYK for Harry C. Foster[edit]

Orlady (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Appleton's Pulpit[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Appleton (born 1625)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Small DYK issue[edit]

Hi, can you follow up here? Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ronald MacKenzie[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Ronald MacKenzie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for MBM scandal[edit]

Cheers and thanks, hope you are having a good weekend Victuallers (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for James A. Kelly, Jr.[edit]

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald MacKenzie[edit]

Thank you for helping the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pierre Pascau[edit]

slakrtalk / 08:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elaine Trebek Kares[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Elaine Trebek Kares at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure you ever saw this—it appears that you weren't pinged here before now—but it's been a month, so I'm hoping you can address it very soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen W. Doran[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hogan's Heroes edit[edit]

You removed a large portion of the Hogan's Heroes article under the guise that it was commentary and original research. While I agree with that in some areas, how can you consider fully cited sections such as where the series was filmed and how the series was received to be original research or commentary? There are other sections that you removed that should have remained but need references such as the fact that most of the actors were Jewish and comfortable with the series. That balances the section on criticism of the series. Before I restore these areas, I'd like to hear your logic as to why you think they don't belong. Dbroer (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've replied to your assertions on my talk page. Please let me know what you would find suitable as a reliable reference so that I can find appropriate references per your request. I've gone back and found many references confirming several statements/facts related to the show but I don't want to get into an edit war because they don't meet your approval. I'd also ask that before you make wholesale deletions that you at least place a citation needed tag and give authors an opportunity to supply them. You can also bring up issues on the talk page. You've clearly done some massive editing to the Hogan's article and have not contributed anything besides removing content and I don't think it's right to make wholesale changes by one person without any discussion. Dbroer (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 May[edit]

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

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) 00:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 May[edit]

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

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) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Article I made on Mark Fisher[edit]

I wish you didn't try to delete my article I created. I worked very hard on it and I took so much time to do. I can provide you more info on him, he has plenty of media coverage:

http://wwlp.com/2014/05/13/massachusetts-gop-certifies-mark-fisher-for-ballot/

I have more as well. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed with my Mark Fisher article being deleted but I not going to fight it because Wikipedia is too strong and I won't win. I'll just say this having nothing to do with Mark Fisher at all. The point being is the Democratic party is more stronger in Massachusetts and Joseph Avellone will have a harder chance in the primary with especially Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman being on the high top. Joseph Avellone is receiving way less media attention than Steve Grossman or even Martha Coakley, Martha Coakley is the front runner right now in the Governor election. Many are saying Martha Coakley has 51%, Steve Grossman 7%, Juliette Kayyem 4%, Donald Berwick 3% and Joseph Avellone only has 1% in the May polls. I just want to be safe and want to no longer want to post on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone article deletion page but I want others to stop and think about what I said too with Grossman and especially Coakley in the lead in the 2014 Massachusetts Governors race.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Dewey Defeats Truman[edit]

The article, as it stands, is unduly apologetic and protective of the Tribune. The article attempts to blame the "mistake" on a labor strike. That is nonsensical and illogical. Perhaps the Tribune did not have the resources to investigate the matter, obtain information, and write a proper article, but rather than admit that, it decided, in reckless disregard of the truth, to publish a headline that turned out to be false. As long as the article is going to contain Tribune apologetics, it should include a line pointing out the deficiency in the apologist's reasoning. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Speakers of the Massachusetts House of Representatives[edit]

You're right, I read the entire article via a Proquest database and it does not say he resigned. Replacing a cited source with uncited material raises red flags, but in this case you are right and my apologies for reverting you. Since you have some knowledge of this subject, perhaps you could improve the John N. Cole article? Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John N. Cole[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 02:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Montowampate[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tracer9999. I noticed that you recently removed some content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._Baker,_Jr. 

If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

do not blank sourced material without consensus. First you deleted most of the section stating it was too long.. then went back and deleted the rest without a comment..that would be pushing a non neutral point of view or more appropriatly attempting to remove a fact. then you once again deleted the whole item after it was restored.... claiming its not neutral. it is NPOV as sourced from a major metropolitan newspaper. I didnt even add the first part just removed the part which was not factually accurate. also the issue being a constitutional one and relating to a political office certainly needs to be mentioned and explained. there are few things mentioned about the election which is why it seems more space is being taken on this topic.. regardless DO NOT remove sourced info without getting consensus because you have the opinion its not relevant. nothing of what is said is remotely factually inaccurate. thanks Tracer9999 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the BLP noticeboard that is relevant here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kickback schemes[edit]

Very nice job on the kickback schemes article. I hope you'll be taking it to DYK? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)