User talk:Mosmof

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



I think the Joe Johnson page needs to be semi-protected. Thanks! --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Please assist cleanup of: Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hangon to image deletion of Kalimati station.jpg[edit]

kindly see the talk page of File:Kalimati station.jpg to see why it should not be deleted.-- devx101 [TALK] 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Merge suggestion for Sports jinxes and Sports-related curses[edit]

It seemed to me to be a lot of OR there as well, but I thought that if any of the "jinxes" were salvageable, it would be best to at least get them on the proper page. The author ought to have added them to sports-related curses instead of creating a new page; I would guess that s/he simply didn't know about the existing article. I suggested the merge as part of routine categorization maintenence. If you feel that most of the content does not belong, as an editor with an interest in the article you're probably justified in making that decision. Fishal (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports jinxes[edit]

I saw that you had PROD'ed the above. Rather than delete it I redirected it to Sports-related curses. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. i think that's a sensible option. --Mosmof (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

5W Public Relations[edit]

Please assist - Theres been quiet here... and plenty of back and forth dont we agree on that ? Thanks much. Protect ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 04:59, August 5, 2010

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Mosmof (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter error[edit]

Sorry, please try it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, working now. --Mosmof (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard England 2-1 Hungary section in International career[edit]

Hello mate,

There are three reasons why you shouldn't have deleted the section on Steven Gerrard I added yesterday:

1. It isn't my fault if there isn't enough detail about the rest of his international career and thats probably because people didn't used to use wikipedia so much in the past, but don't you think people will want to read about this? I think a player of Steven Gerrard's calibre deserves a little more description than he currently has.

2. You say that I use too much 'flowery' language but I'm just trying to to portray a vivid image of the goals in the mind of the viewer! If I'd just said '20-yard strike' instead of 'sublime 20-yard half-volley' it would not have had the same effect. The usage of words such as 'sublime' and 'danced' adds flavour to the text and I personally don't think it should be discouraged.

3. You call it an 'inconsequential match' but firstly the player in question captained the team, scored two brilliant goals, played in his favoured position under Capello for the first time and it was the first match England had played since the 2010 World Cup and therefore the 2-1 win was a much needed morale-booster and restored some fans faith in English football. How is this inconsequential? It was an important match for both the player and the team as a whole and I feel that it deserves a mention.

And one last proposition for you if you still don't see where I'm coming from: Would you mind not deleting it if I improved the rest of the 'International career' section to match the level of description in my segment? I could include more detail about his international tournaments and perhaps the other significant goals he has scored for England in the past.

Thanks for reading and please consider my words carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksyonthemoon (talkcontribs) 08:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My Changes[edit]

Dear Mosmof: Please let me know what I can do to improve my changes to this article. Every time I make changes to improve the way the article sounds my changes keep getting reverted. Please advise what i can and cannot do. I would like to have something up that is allowed. Thank you. --Rosemarylora (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Is this (and this) a case of WP:NFG? If not, then why? /HeyMid (contributions) 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering the above. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I'd responded to you, but it looks like my reply got lost in the shuffle somehow. Anyway, I think the use of the broken stick image is fine. WP:NFG covers image galleries, and since the broken stick screencap is used in context of the discussion of the broken stick feature, I think you're fine. Apologies for the belated response. Mosmof (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

William Gallas[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your edit to the William Gallas article. Other Spurs players' articles include the full name of the club and I don't see why Gallas should be any different. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I know we generally go for brevity in the infobox, but consistency is probably more important. Thanks for letting me know. Mosmof (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Image[edit]

Your recent edit to Leonardo González broke the infobox image. I don't know where the new image is located you're trying to use, so you'll need to fix it or I can revert it. --SkotyWATC 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Regarding [1], I'm amazed that you're claiming this is synthesis. There are 3 sources cited, and one of them actually uses the word "iconic" in it. Please explain? On a side note, I think it's very underhanded of you to remove this sentence on the day that the image review hits 7 days and admins will try to make a decision on the picture. I'm not going to stoop to this level and revert it until I've given you 12 hours to explain how this is possibly synthesis. If you want to regain a shred of decency out of this, you can revert it yourself until we can discuss it. --SkotyWATC 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you're not really paraphrasing what the source actually says. You're making your own conclusion, that images from the match are "historic" or "iconic", because someone who's selling pictures online said that particular image was iconic. And I wish you'd have the decency to assume good faith, since that paragraph has jack all to do with the image in question (and I honestly didn't know we were hitting the 7-day milestone - I didn't realize it was such a big date). I nominated the image for failing WP:NFCC#8, and the paragraph doesn't add any critical commentary of the image. Hell, the image in question isn't even mentioned anywhere. Unless you're somehow trying to claim ALL images from the historic season are iconic, which seems a tad bit insane.
And "3 sources cited"? Really? You added an auction site for an autographed photo, another for an artist who's selling a montage of, in the artist's words, "iconic moments" (emphasis mine), and a photo gallery. Yes, the word "iconic" is used. You're absolutely correct about that. But nowhere in the three links is there a mention of iconic images. So your claim that the images are iconic are unsupported by any reliable, independent source.
Anyway, thanks for the chance to regain a shred of decency. That's extremely big of you. I'll sleep on it. --Mosmof (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
First, sorry for the "shred of decency" comment. I was beyond annoyed and didn't get calm before I posted that. I made the mistake of expecting you to understand how I percieved your actions. Clearly that's not possible. Frankly I think you're way past good faith on this one, and much closer to my just calling a duck a duck.
Second, if I'm to summarize what you're saying above, it basically boils down to something along the lines of: "iconic moments" does not equal "iconic images". You're saying I can't make that conclusion. Since all of the sources are talking about (or selling) artwork, I would have thought it was obvious we're talking about images, but you've got your technicality, so good for you. As I said in the review discussion, I didn't like the sentence I added to the article much anyways. It's unecessary because it points out the obvious. However, as you seem determined to demonstrate, even obvious stuff like this can have chinks in their armor such that you can prove, or disproove, almost anything.
Therefore, I congratulate you on your "contribution" to the encyclopedia. --SkotyWATC 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
See, that's unfair, because I've been trying to explain WP:NFCC, since you seem to be unfamiliar with image policies and the usual issues that come up in these deletion discussions, and you've only been combative (or at least passive aggressively combative) from the start, so I'm puzzled at what point it became clear that I'm this awful, awful person not deserving of the assumption of good faith.
Anyway, to address your points:
  • "iconic moments" does not equal "iconic images": Exactly. Many, many photos of iconic moments are not necessarily iconic, and conversely, many, many iconic photos are not necessarily of iconic moments. You simply can't extrapolate iconicness.
  • You're saying I can't make that conclusion.: Again, yes. That's what WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH are about.
  • "Since all of the sources are talking about (or selling) artwork, I would have thought it was obvious we're talking about images: Yes, I think? We are talking about images. We're just not talking about the image we're supposed to be talking about.
I know you've been reaching out to other editors, and that's great. But you need to stop taking this personally. Consensus changes all the time. Featured article reviews aren't infallible. Maintaining civility shouldn't be that hard. Mosmof (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
you need to stop taking this personally and Maintaining civility shouldn't be that hard - I'm really bummed I included that "shred of decency" comment here, because other than that, I think I've conducted myself in a pretty rational manner. I've tried to make a clear case and respond to rebuttles with a fact based approach. I did more research when necessary and tried to provide many reasonable examples to back up the claims I was making. I wonder if I hadn't included the "shred of decency" thing above if you would have had the same conclusion about my approach. While I admit I am super frustrated with how the Wikipedia process seems to destroy article quality rather than encourage it in this case, I don't think I'm taking it personally. That just seems like an easy way to dismiss some inconvenient truths I've pointed out.
Consensus changes all the time. - That's easy to say generally, but the difference between consensus among 4 editors on a file deletion page and an order of magnitude more editors on an FAC review is something that's completely overlooked in that statement. I don't expect you to understand that as you've never been involved in an FAC review yourself (you'll probably just think I'm taking this personally again here). The problem I have with the file deletion process is the attitude of "anything nominated is a violation by default unless proven otherwise". The nominators seem to take a lot of pride in that when objections are raised. For most of the uncontested stuff that goes through there, this is a fine policy and makes cleanup of many parts of the encyclopedia very straight forward work. However, I think when its used as a tool to destroy featured articles piece by piece, it misses the point. --SkotyWATC 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, you seemed really defensive from the start and you seemed to take the mere nomination of the image as an affront. I've been involved in WP:FFDs for some time now (you're free to look at my edits), and I can tell you that this particular deletion was pretty routine and uncontroversial. I think your perception that "anything nominated is a violation by default unless proven otherwise" is a case of sample bias - I wouldn't nominate an image without good reason and I doubt too many editors do (although the burden of proof falls more heavily towards keeping WP:NFC, with good reason). I looked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1, and it seems the image came up, but the discussion was never truly fleshed out. I get that it's frustrating and WP:NFCC can seem convoluted if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practice with non-free content. But you seem resistant to any sort of guidance on the issue, which I've found frustrating. --Mosmof (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a weak argument to now blame this on my not being familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices. WP:NFCC does not seem convoluted. It's pretty clear cut. Unfortunately, WP:NFCC#8 gets contentious because some editors see an image and think "this isn't a significant image for me" or "this image didn't help me understand the article" and therefore think this applies to everyone. Unfortunately, it's hard to object rationally to such an irrational conclusion. I guess another point that frustrated me was that I also pointed out a lot of related Wikipedia policies and practices and they were all but ignored (especially by you). Is that also routine? I've already reviewed your edit history which how I know that you've never been involved in a featured article review. What a shame. I encourage you to try it some time. I assure you it's a lot harder than WP:FFD, but the productive value to the project is far greater. I admit this is my first time being involved in WP:FFD though. Therefore, I indeed was unfamiliar with how a small set of editors goes about this destructive work. For the most part, this is a simple process with cleanliness as its goal. But as I learned, disagree with them, and prepare to be buldozed and expect them to tell you something like "it's only because you don't understand." --SkotyWATC 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


I suppose I should assume good faith with these edits too? From where I'm sitting, it looks to me like you nominated the image for deletion, didn't get what you wanted, and then took it upon yourself to delete the image by other methods. Rather than reporting you for trying to circumvent the process (which is known as disruptive edits), I'll assume good faith and leave it be. Gotta say though, this pretty much fails the duck test for me as well. --SkotyWATC 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you. I thought a non-free photo of the bleachers helped the article far more than a non-free image of a book cover that's not discussed or mentioned in the article. How awful of me. --Mosmof (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The book is discussed in the article and the book cover image is shown in that section. I agree that the picture you were trying to add does improve the article. Did you consider replacing one of the other more low-quality images in the article rather than the one you failed to have deleted? --SkotyWATC 06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the deal - the book isn't "discussed" in the sense that people independent of the book or the subject are expressing their opinion or analyzing the book. It's just an explanation of the book and a couple of pullquotes from the author and the writer of the foreword. But we can disagree on that. No big deal.
The issue though, is that the cover art is neither discussed nor mentioned, and therefore adds nothing to the reader's understanding beyond providing a nice visual on the page. Any information that's critical to understanding the article is already in the article, or can easily be added without using non-free content (for example, Wikipedia has this nice handy feature where the ISBN number will create a hyperlink to pages that will give full bibliographical details).
Anyway, the decision wasn't a "keep" - It was a "no consensus" with marginally more !votes for "delete". I figured I'd be bold and removing the image wouldn't do any irreparable harm to the article. Mosmof (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to the policy which states that the cover art itself must be discussed. I've only read that critical commentary of the work itself (not necessarily the cover) is what's necessary.
The decision was the keep with the previous consensus regarding the image and not delete it. It's easy to hide behind statements like "consensus can change" when it's convenient for you, but in this case, it didn't change. You're actions following that result were questionable at best. --SkotyWATC 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, WP:NFCI is not a blanket allowance for all non-free book covers as long as the book is discussed. They must still pass WP:NFCC#8, and the cover image itself must have some sort of contextual significance. Also, there was no "previous consensus", just someone who uploaded an image and placed it in a relatively low-trafficked article. Consensus didn't change because none existed. --Mosmof (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, you're talking is circles. It does have contextual significance. It's included in the context of the section that discusses the book. Consensus did exist, as explained in this policy, by the fact that nobody has discussed this image since it was added to the article over 3 years ago. The fact that you're the first person to object to the image in 3 years indeed means you were trying to change consensus which is fine, but it didn't change. When you then go back and delete the image yourself not one day after consensus remained consistent (rather than the change you proposed) you crossed an obvious line. --SkotyWATC 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. At this point, I say "have it your way." Damn the review process. --SkotyWATC 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally seeing the light. It was an incredibly frustrating process so I appreciate you backing off from your stance. Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Congratulations, you wore me out. The only light I've seen is that I'm giving up. I still believe you're wrong about this picture and many others. Did it ever occur to you to research the meaning of the conent on the cover and mention that in the prose rather than just deleting the picture. I consider your contributions in this manner destructive, not constructive to the overall project. Regardless, since you kept at it and I don't have time (or care enough about this particular article), you win. Bravo. --SkotyWATC 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Boy, do you lay on the passive aggressiveness thick. Your judgmental wag of the finger is duly noted. And yes, I did look at the prose. I have yet to find anything that discusses the cover image that makes the image essential to the article, but I'll look again. Mosmof (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

LL in 85[edit]

My bad. I intended to just remove the extra one tag. Dan56 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No biggie, no harm done. Thanks for the message. Mosmof (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arkansas Gymbacks[edit]

I have contested your prod of Arkansas Gymbacks and redirected the article to Arkansas Lady Razorbacks#Gymnastics. While I agree that the subject does not warrant an independent article, I do believe that it is a plausible search term. If you disagree, feel free to list at RfD, or at AfD if the redirect gets reverted. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty sensible solution. Thanks for doing that. Mosmof (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain why you disagree with my changes?[edit]

Don't just revert. --KerAvelt (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The series of edits was based on a bogus claim of consensus. There. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sir, there was more than consensus (other Anti-Rubashkin editors seemed to have conceded that he was not CEO), there was clear evidence that you nor your cohort have responded to, what motivated you to change it?

Oh, and I like the latest trick up your sleeve, we will see how far it goes. --KerAvelt (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Giggs[edit]

Hello mate, I really like the clean-up you did on the "post-career" section of Ryan Giggs. I am new to wikipedia, and I appreciate all the constructive criticism. I thought that section would be an important add to Giggs' profile, and I am glad that you agree, and did not just delete it. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakim91 (talkcontribs) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Athletic logos[edit]

As far as the Kent State University-related articles go, the script "K" logo is an "official" logo, but it is by no means a principal or even common alternate logo. The point of a logo in an article is to make that visual connection with the subject since many people see the logo in various media outlets (TV, newspaper, Internet). That's why articles about athletic programs, teams, and specific seasons all have places for the logo. The point of NFCC#1 is more for instances like photographs where an image can easily be obtained of a building or individual rather than using a copyrighted image from a website. With logos, you generally stick to the principal logo, which is also the most recognized. Being a KSU alum and living in Kent, the simple "K" is not that widely used. Its main use is merchandise and is most often found on hats and a few varieties of clothing. In other words, it's an alternate logo (conversely, the university also has an alternate logo that just features the eagle head and lightning that wraps around the K in the main logo). The athletic uniforms, website, and publications use the actual logo and all outside media sources (like also use the full logo. The only major use of the "K" was in the recent attendance campaign that used the "K" as part of a larger logo (see Even there, though, you'll note the use of the main logo is far more prevalent. Also, the file itself is a .gif file. It should be a png file at least. .gif files don't look good when they're resized. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. These aren't articles about entities. These articles are about seasons, and seasons don't have logos, so WP:LOGO doesn't apply, and these uses fail WP:NFCC#8. A reader is not going to have any trouble understanding the subject matter if the primary logo isn't there. So the choices are to either not use a logo at all or use a {{PD-text}} version that's shows up in the school's guidelines, thus no less valid than the primary logo. --Mosmof (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an issue you need to take up with the wikiprojects (WP:CFB and WP:COLB) that deal with the season and team articles since the current standard for all season and team articles is to include a logo in the infobox where available. Simply going on a personal interpretation of the rule is just going to get people upset at you. I would argue that while not having the logo isn't detrimental to understanding the subject, including the logo on a season page is part of giving a fuller picture since the logo is something that identifies a specific team and makes that visual connection. Using the text logo wouldn't be very accurate IMO. It should be noted that for season articles, the logo used is whatever logo was in use that season, not simply the current logo. So, for Kent State, any season articles from before 2000 wouldn't use the current logo (see 1972 Kent State Golden Flashes football team). --JonRidinger (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
On a related note in regards to the use of the logo at Kent State University#Athletics, I went through several university articles that are FA status and some of them do include the athletic logo in their athletics section while others do not, meaning it's a matter of preference, not of policy that they are included or not (see Texas A&M University#Athletics, University of California, Riverside#Athletics, and Florida Atlantic University#Athletics). Of those that do include the logo that I read, none had any discussion of the logo within the body of the text. The only "discussion" is simply the basic caption "The athletic logo for..." or some variant of that. It is worth noting that two of the logos have copyrightable elements (i.e. not just letters like Texas A&M). Basically, the logo is an expected visual element of the athletic department. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize it as "a personal interpretation of the rule" - as I said in the WP:CFB discussion, it's what I've observed to be the common practice for college sports articles, whether it's actual policy or not.
As for university articles, I'm happy to concede that using sports team logos in athletic teams is acceptable use. It doesn't bother me that much since the use is pretty limited. I think the season and rivalry articles are where we should be concerned about overuse. Mosmof (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree we need to be concerned about overuse; I obviously don't think this is a case of that. Seeing that season articles have achieved FA-status with copyrighted logos (see 2007 USC Trojans football team) in the infobox leads me to believe that the policy, at least now, is acceptable outside of the projects themselves. I can't say that for rivalry articles, though I think based on the following discussion that they could be permissible in the infobox. Here is where it was discussed back in 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_30#Logo_inclusion_in_football_club_season_infoboxes --JonRidinger (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


it should be in the article. If you want to word it that Yahoo reported that a deal was agreed to, fine, but it definitely warrants a mention since the report has made the rounds. Enigmamsg 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) he already has signed photo is here

plz cite if u can find and eng source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianconero1903 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup - I've included an AP article as source. Mosmof (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto[edit]

Why dont you review that page since you seem to watch Rabbis closely —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't watch rabbis closely, so I decline, but thank you for thinking about me. Mosmof (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Am listening to you and have now contacted said individual a 3rd time. Am willing and want to compromise and hope sockpuppet will also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hack Wilson 1930.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Hack Wilson 1930.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

David Yates Image[edit]

Fair enough. You know what you're talking about! I'm sorry I still don't understand, so I'll leave the image be deleted. Unless you can upload an image of Yates (I'm a big fan of his!). Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Blog[edit]

I see comments on an archived page and I am not sure I may comment there, so, please allow me to comment here.

Here is the issue in question: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Los_Angeles_Times_Blog

Here are the comments I would add:

Oh my. Hipocrite brought an issue here and did not inform anyone (at least not on the relevant Talk page that I noticed), especially me. I only learned of this after having to search for it, in the archives, no less, after someone complained. The problem is the LA Times reports the map is the work of the American Library Association (ALA), but the ALA plagiarized the map from an unreliable source and the LA Times reported it as if the ALA wrote it since the ALA made it appear that way. "We're smack in the middle of Banned Books Week, an event sponsored by the American Library Assn., the American Publishers Assn. and others. This year, they've launched an interactive map that shows which books were officially banned or challenged, and where, in 2008." No, that is false. Some unnamed and unreliable source launched it, admitted so on a blog of the National Coalition Against Censorship that now claims ownership, but the ALA plagiarized it and presented it as its own. That's the problem with the LA Times source, namely, it repeats the ALA fraud through no fault of the LA Times. And plagiarism is fraud. And the ALA has plagiarized a number of things in my opinion, this map is just one. So the question really is, can you use a source as a reliable source when the information contained therein is proven to be false because someone else claims ownership and his claim is more believable. I say no.

Thanks, Mosmof, for your input, if you have the time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what more I can add beyond what you've laid out here. This doesn't seem to be a WP:RS issue, and there doesn't seem to be any question that ALA/BBW is republishing the map, whatever its origins. --Mosmof (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Humphreyspenaltycheltenham.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

I haven’t been on Wikipedia for some and the rest was due to frustration due good content being deleted.

I’m not bothered but in response…


As clearly explained in the article. Humphreys missed a penalty against Cheltenham. This was a major moment in his career.

“Humphreys' first season at the club would end in disappointment as he missed the decisive penalty in the play-off semi final defeat to Cheltenham Town, which cost Hartlepool a place in Division Two. The penalty struck the woodwork twice and stayed out.[22] Humphreys' miss would send him to tears and he was photographed by Frank Reid, a photograph that would prove to be one of the most memorable images of Reid and Humphreys' career.”


This was a case of exercising demons. It was a major moment in his career. One of the defining moments in his career.

“In the 2004–05 season, Humphreys helped Hartlepool once again make the play-offs. During the play-off semi-final against Tranmere, Humphreys had the task of taking a penalty for Hartlepool in sudden death. This was the first time Humphreys had taken a penalty since his crucial miss at Cheltenham. This time he scored and sent Hartlepool through to the play-off final against his old club Sheffield Wednesday.[31] This helped to erase the memories of Cheltenham”

So to say those were “Decorative image, no discussion about the image” is wrong. But you’ve got what you’ve wanted. This has proven my point. Englishrose (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point was? In your comment above, you make a claim about the photograph, but that claim of significance isn't attributed to anyone, and the deleted image is not the one discussed in the article. I'm not sure how this is a case of "good content being deleted" and I really don't appreciate the petty, passive aggressive "you've got what you've wanted" line. Mosmof (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The deleted images signified memorable moments in the players career that were in the article. It was like a real life movie. Guy misses penalty, guy has regrets, guy writes a book about it "From Tears to Cheers", guy erases the bad memories and scores a sudden death penalty in the same situation. The two images are linked and capture defining moments. The significance of the photo was attributed to Ritchie Humphreys but there you go. Englishrose (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So the image is significant according to the photographer and the subject of the photo. Huh. Mosmof (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
In the most simplest of English. The image is significant as it depicts a significant and important moment in the history of Ritchie Humphreys and Hartlepool United F.C.. Englishrose (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And in a nutshell, you've articulated the most common misunderstanding of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#8 that I encounter. Showing a historic and/or significant event does not necessarily make the image itself historic or significant, which is one of the criteria for fair use under Wikipedia's non-free content policies. --Mosmof (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nokia image[edit]

It is subject to deletion on Commons due to strict codes, they can't find the source. It should be kept on Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Commons image. It seems that the rationale for deletion would be as valid here as it is there. I'm wondering which specific Commons policies you're referring to. --Mosmof (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I noticed you changed the notice. Yeah, kinda confused why it would be A.O.K. here but not on Commons. --Mosmof (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Updated message: It is subject to deletion on Commons due to strict codes that they cannot verify the source. The uploader appears credible, so in good faith, it should be kept locally on Wikipedia. I've since changed the template. Editor182 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we always assume good faith. But acting in good faith doesn't necessarily mean doing things correctly, and assumption of good faith doesn't preclude asking questions and for verification. It seems best to let the Commons deletion process take its course, and THEN we can talk about putting it up here. But if it comes to that, I'll probably end up putting the image on PUI, just to get a few more eyeballs to look at the image. --Mosmof (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but really, who knows how many images are on Wikipedia from authors who upload and claim they own the work, however, that may not be the case, but it cannot be proven otherwise.. point is, this follows the same principle, the user claims they sourced it from such and such, but it cannot be proven. We assume good faith and if it can be proven that it was sourced from a copyrighted domain - then we can throw out good faith.. but for now, lets assume good faith. Take a look at the original image [2], and I've since edited it with noticeable improvement. It's a poor image. If you're going to source a Nokia N8 image from somewhere and claim it's from such and such, then why not pick a better image.. good faith and reasonable doubt.. it would be great if we didn't bring in the eyeballs, and say we have reasonable doubt and good faith to prevent any course of action for review.. Commons? Different story, they assume no good faith if you're claiming another source, it must be verifiable, and fair enough, it is dedicated to free media. Editor182 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Verifiability is very much a requirement for images here on English Wikipedia, regardless of the level of enforcement. And while we may not be able to verify a lot of the PD claims on images here, but because they're personal snap shots or come from established users or whatever the reason, we generally have good reason to believe the claims are valid. In any case, this amounts to an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.
But this isn't just a random picture with a simple "I own this work" claim. It's a high rez photo, and you might think it's a shitty image, but it's not that easy to get a clean product shot. And if a government agency is really the source, then it shouldn't be hard to find the exact source and copyright details. In any case, I don't see the issue with bringing in more eyeballs to review the image. That's the whole point of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, to avoid and correct mistakes and to gather more information by bringing people together. Mosmof (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

-*sigh* bring in the clowns. ;) Editor182 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed "restoring original response for the sake of logic" and I take offense to that, as I'm not illogical. Perhaps I don't have excellent Talk page format and took me a while to work out how the heck to put up a Deletion review, even putting it on the articles discussion page, but that's because I don't spend much time, no, as little time as I can on Talk, and as much time as I can on articles. If you look at my contributions, I've managed to avoid Talk since June, where I had another dispute. It's too bad I can't put my activity on private, it was one of the clowns from June that listed my image for deletion, because he "monitors my account periodically".. I couldn't care less what others are doing, but it appears I have more monitors after this second dispute.. I may have to create a new account periodically.. point being, I think you can excuse my imperfect Talk page etiquette based on I don't care for Talk. Editor182 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That wording probably wasn't the best - I just did it so I could see what my response was to when I came back later. You've been perfectly civil with me here and no offense was intended. Mosmof (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sunkist logo 2008.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sunkist logo 2008.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto[edit]

We have rarely if ever agreed but you seem to be interested in these issues. Spend 5 minutes would you and review Rabbi Pinto page. Is it not possible you once in your life can agree with me ? Surely items like the most expensive synagogue in the US, the fact that he's not well known in Israel and death curses which are mentioned in all their sources are relevant, no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 04:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to sympathize with either side on this edit war. It's not that I don't think you're right - you don't seem interested in actually finding a middle ground with your fellow editor. --Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say that, have you actually read the materials ? What have they given in on ? Am absolutely willing but they consider him a gd like figure. Whats so hard to understand even about the bottom items ? Lets say I accept not listing the other stuff - is the bottom not relevant @all ? Thank you: Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.”

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why there's a talk page, and both sides could probably tone down the rhetoric. --Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wont help so say so but I know you are good at this and know that you view your form of justice as fair. If you read the issues and stories here you will see I am right and being bullied and know you dont give in to that sort of thing. We have gotten along well online lately, no ? How about simply reviewing it ? Read the talk page - They added spiritual leader 2x in 2 paragraphs and I am the irrational one ? They think this guy is the Messiah and their sources say exactly what I do but they wont include it. The guy has a $30 Million building and thats not relevant ? Take a look ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Note: This user has brought this up at several noticeboards and user talk pages. Netalarmtalk 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gahhh... he is posting at every other noticeboard. Netalarmtalk 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are really really good at pushing your political agenda and simply opposing me. as a rule i say black and u say white without even reading it. You mean to tell me you will accept Arutz 7 as a source on other issues across the board ? Did you bother to actually read the Pinto piece ? (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What's my political agenda? I didn't realize I had one! Let's not distort facts here - you lied and said the source was an "obscure blog". It

Is neither obscure nor a blog, and you know it. Mosmof (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip McCluskey[edit]

Hi MosMof - I noticed the tags you placed on the Philip McCluskey article and wanted to discuss with you. I noticed that you flag things or make changes but have not yet entered into a discussion, so would appreciate a two-way conversation if possible, in the spirit of collaboration. I did contest the third party source tag because the article does, in fact, include third-party sources (not self-published) and the only first-person information comes from the source of the article himself, which is definitely allowed under Wiki guidelines. As for your other tags, some questions:

1. How short do you feel an introduction needs to be in order for you to not deem it "too long"? I've noticed many different intro lengths on Wiki, without this tag. 2. How many additional references would satisfy? I was not aware that there was a quota for references, as long as valid third-party references were included. 3. Please give specific examples in the text that you feel are written like an advertisement; the tone is as neutral as possible. If you disagree, then you are welcome to make edits that will make it sound more neutral.

Thank you, MosMof. If you cannot give specific answers to the above questions, then please consider removing the tags you previously put on the article. I do want to have a high-quality article up here and appreciate your help, but also need guidance and a helping hand from the community, which includes you. For us newbies, it goes a long way if you back up your tags with some additional reasoning. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenadj (talkcontribs) 19:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

      • I really appreciate the response to this post, MosMof. Thank you. Your suggestions make sense; I'll try to keep adding to the article as I find more sources. You're also welcome to make additions as you think are necessary, of course. I have a question about these tags: if I improve upon the article in response to a tag, what's the tag removal etiquette? Is it OK for me to remove it, is it something you remove, or is it simply open to the community to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenadj (talkcontribs) 04:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture on Kaká page.[edit]

I say the picture on the Kaká page needs to be changed. I can get you one if you need it. Just tell me how I can give it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect info about international goals on Kaká page.[edit]

Most of the international goals on the Kaká page have something wrong in them. Either it's the date, the opponent, the competition and some of the goals didn't even take place! Please correct them using this - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Update on 5wpr[edit]

I read the talk page but couldn't quite understand who was against whom in the 5WPR Agriprocessor story. I see it has been downplayed in the article, which now reads like a panegyric.

Do you feel, as I do, that this story should be in the lead? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward Mermelstein[edit]

I have renominated Edward Mermelstein for deletion, and have gone about it completely wrong. I have written my arguments in the archived discussion, where it certainly does not belong, and don't know exactly where I should have put it. You have a lot more experience at this. Can you straighten things out for me? You may also want to participate in the discussion. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been straightened out, thanks to Pgallert. here is the discussion. I am guessing you want to take part. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Files by Zwilson14[edit]

Hi Mosmof, I notice that you marked several images by Zwilson14 (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as copyright violations. I have deleted them and I also notice that this user has also had a bunch of other images previously deleted as copyright violations. I think it is therefore likely that other images he has uploaded are also copyright violations. Any chance you could take a look at the rest of this user's uploads to determine if they are also copyvios? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a few quick searches on other pictures, and I couldn't find matches for them on the web. But I think the fact that they're all low res, PNG (instead of JPEG) files of dramatically varying qualities tells me they should go up for WP:PUI as a group. As far as I can see, the user has given no indication of ownership beyond the generic "I, the creator" tag. At the very least, we should ask the user to provide more complete source information and to replace the PNG uploads with the original high-res JPEGs (if they exist). Is there a way to do batch nomianations for PUI, or do they go to WP:FFD? Mosmof (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I listed the images for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_19#Uploads_by_User:Zwilson14. I don't deal with image deletions very often, and haven't done this kind of mass nomination before, so hopefully it's done correctly. Your input at that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks for your help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag of File:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg[edit]

Could you be more specific with why you believe the image is replaceable? I have disputed the tag on the talk page of the article because the image is of a historical event which cannot be replaced. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at File talk:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg. --Mosmof (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Most successful" subjective?[edit]

There is no subjectivity about the claim that Manchester United is the most successful club in the history of English football. They have won the most trophies out of any English club, therefore they are the most successful. Same goes for the description of Alex Ferguson as the most successful manager. – PeeJay 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's "successful" as defined by your set of criteria. And who is to say a manager's success is judged by the number of trophies? Why rely on an adjective that doesn't have a set-in-stone metric when we can just say "Manchester United has won the most titles" and avoid it altogether? I don't see the need to complicate matters, even if ever so slightly. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome Concept Art Images[edit]

Can you tell me, or perhaps show me what licence template is needed to fix these issues? The images are obviously promotional material, so this should be quickly adressed with the right template. The problem is, I don't know which one. Since you seem to know, what template is the right? AnonymousAnimus (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much a licensing issue as it is not meeting WP:NFCC#8 (a non-free image has to meet ALL the non-free content criteria). Specifically, the image isn't a subject of critical (sourced) commentary or discussion, so the article doesn't really suffer if the image isn't included. --Mosmof (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

revert Ashley Martin and Liz Heaston[edit]

I reverted the image change on these two articles because the images, although non-free, have historical value and cannot be duplicated. It's not just a "placekick" on a field goal, but the first placekick of a field goal by a female in college football at that level.

I searched and could not find any reference to not using non-free images of historical value in policies. I of course could be wrong (and often am) so if I am, please let me know and show me the source. It might be worth some discussion on the non-free image use pages if the subject hasn't come up before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. "Historic" thing seems to confuse a lot of people. It's not talking about images that show events of historic value. It's about cases where the images themselves are of historic value, like the V-E Day kiss or Robert Capa's fallen soldier, where the photographs are subjects of extensive discussion and commentary. There's no such historical commentary of these women kicking footballs. Also, these uses fail WP:NFCC#8, since you stuck them in the infobox and there's no discussion, or even mention, of the images. If you still disagree, I'd be happy to discuss the images at WP:NFR. --Mosmof (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No need, it's not a big deal for me. It would be nice if we had a photo for the page, but there's more critical work to do methinks.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
K, thanks for the note. --Mosmof (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


You stated that the links i posted as a source for reebok's endorsers were non-notable. How is it non-notable if the actual advertisement is at the link SHOWING the athlete/ entertainer endorsed the product? Then you stated that my other post was spam because I noted that they had a past endorsement and showed proof of it? Then you call one of my links a "vanity link to a sneaker blog" ? So one minute its spam then its a vanity link? All the links provided are proof of the endorsements, all the links provided are from a site that reputable, all the links support proof of the endorsement. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talkcontribs) 16:59, 17 November 2011‎

I'm saying that the publication is non-notable, and the way you're flooding the articles with makes it spammy and apparently vanity (though in retrospect, I should've assumed good faith. It's mostly an issue with reliability of the source - we want sources to be established, widely recognized publications, and defynewyork doesn't seem to have that level of notability or traction that we like in our sources. --Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You said you want the source to be established and widely recognized well complex magazine ( had no issue citing me as a source

sole collector had no issues either neither did and countless other sneaker sites. Your obviously not familiar with the sneaker culture because my website has a large following of senior editors for major publications, footwear designers, store owners, etc. I think its safe to say that my website is widely recognizable. The reason my site was linked as a reference to Arnold. Paula abdul, Darius Miles etc. is because I'm the only sneaker site with these photo's (if other sites had better coverage on these topics then i would have cited them as references as i have in the past.) And if you think that the sneaker community is small and the information not valuable then you are very very wrong. Every day there are people researching the history of these brands with the most important info being who were the endorsers of their product. Not only does the consumer want to know but the brands themselves as some of these advertisements are very very rare. Also, I'm widely respected in the shoe community. If you google trethousandgt you would see that. And yes I do consider myself an expert on the subject but not sure if I should waste my time posting on here anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talkcontribs) 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talkcontribs) 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate you letting me know what the deal is, I don't want to waste my time posting information only to have someone delete all my work again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talkcontribs) 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A few things - I'm not always going to respond to messages immediately. Even if I make minor edits, I don't always have the time to give detailed responses. There's no need to keep bugging me - I see when you leave a message.
Anyway, I think you're being pretty presumptuous about what I know or think. Straw man arguments are unhelpful. I don't doubt you when you say your site is respected. I use to run my own site myself and it got occasional mentions in larger publications and had (and still have). But that doesn't make my site notable enough to be a source, especially since I wasn't putting myself through a rigorous editorial process.
Also, since it's your own site, anything there would be considered original research - you want information that's been covered and reported by other (reliable) sources (also see WP:SPS).
Finally, a good source is one that says "Person x did y in year z". Pointing to an old ad and using it as "proof" that an athlete endorsed a product amounts to synthesis. If a piece of information is notable enough for someone other than you to care, then you should be able to find someone other than you (who's also notable) reporting it.Mosmof (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger for Reebok I stated he endorsed Reebok Shoes (agreed, I should have stated more info). However, the back link to the article clearly stated the year and also displayed the original commercial in addition to the original advertisement. How exactly does that add up to "synthesis." I didn't take the commercial and the advertisement and say Arnold wore Reebok's and performed better during his workouts, all I stated was that he endorsed the product which is what the advert and commercial clearly show. That is not synthesis. Also, you say "if a piece of information is notable enough for someone other than you to care, then you should be able to find someone other than you (who's also notable) reporting it." That doesn't hold true if this "notable person" doesn't knows its existence, and then, what happens if they cite me as the source when they finally do report it? Does that person then become someone who is no longer notable? If I understand you correctly, the bottom line is that my site is not reputable enough and therefore cannot be cited as a source for anything "new" that hasn't been seen before (to any Wiki pages that is) because my site is not a widely known publication such as the New York Post or LA Times (which is known in the industry to cross check facts)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trethousandgt (talkcontribs) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To respond to your questions one by one:
  • In the case of Arnold's ad, you're conveying information or a point that wasn't made by any other reputable source. That would be a textbook case of WP:OR.
  • If a publication that qualifies as a WP:RS cites you as a source, then awesome, cite that publication that cited you. I don't see how that would be a problem. That means the information was deemed notable enough AND passed through the editorial layers of a more notable publication.
  • Well, I wouldn't say "reputable". It's just that WIkipedia's process prefers information that's passed the muster of editorial oversight, hence more mainstream publications are preferred over self-published sources.
  • Anyway, the bigger issue here is that it's *your* site which also happens to be a WP:SPS. --Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I'll abide by Wiki's rules and appreciate your attention to all my questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...[edit]

...what made this edit vandalism? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That was by error - I was going to do a standard revert with explanation, but hit the vandalism button by accident. My apologies. --Mosmof (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense then, I thought I was missing something. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Florida State Seminoles helmet.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Florida State Seminoles helmet.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Paul[edit]

You mad son? CP3 is a Laker. I'll hit you up tomorrow to prove your revisions are foolish. GO LAKERS :p KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

a) I am not your son. b) I understand enough English to know the difference between "is" and "will be". kthxbye. --Mosmof (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They JUST SAID it's official on TV. ESPN NEVER acknowledges moves as OFFICIAL UNTIL they actually are. He's a Laker. I'll hit you up tomorrow and clown you. GO LAKERS KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the trade isn't official. That means the trade isn't done. Thank you for confirming what we already knew. --Mosmof (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I ain't worried. CP3 is a Laker. What's your team? Miami? Lulz. Nah, but for real you know it's legit, however I know Wiki's rules. I'm just pumped. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you're not worried! Whew! I'm a free agent - my team left town long ago and haven't picked up a team, so I'm pretty neutral about all this. And yes, I am well aware that shit be legit.--Mosmof (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hoodie article[edit]

Just so that I don't just revert your reversion of my information regarding hoodies worn by university students and have you revert it back could you explain why you got rid of my comments? Seemed like reasonable information to me! Cls14 (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that, you're playing the original research card. Yawn. Fair point but very pedantic. Guess I ought to try and find some references. Cls14 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question from User:TomParry123[edit]

Why did you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomParry123 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Change what? --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

don't be retarded[edit]

stop being an asshole. the dude who does the rap/hip-hop section on is legit. don't be stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubanLinxBaby (talkcontribs) 05:54, 26 December 2011‎

Oh, for sure, I'm sure he's totally legit. The problem is that an ranking isn't that notable. It's a ranking that other notable sources discuss extensively, like the Billboard charts or the AP ranking. It's a ranking that nobody outside of and its readers care about, and not considered a definitive ranking. --Mosmof (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


Yo, undelete the photo for Venable Hall "Venable2.jpg"

It is a picture I took myself, so I definitely have free reign to distribute it. I will put the correct licensing thing in the image.

Please put it back on because I have deleted the original.

Thanks MorrisS (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the power to actually delete or undelete photographs. You'll have to take it up with the closing admin or (possibly) at WP:DRV. If I remember correctly, the photograph also appeared on the university website, and there was no indication that anyone other than the university held the rights to the photo. And you also had a photograph from The Plains Dealer that you claimed as your own, which didn't reflect well on your claim of ownership on other photographs. --Mosmof (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I did some side work for both the school and Plain Dealer while I attended College. I took the pictures and they used them for promotional stuff on their website. I listed the correct licensing originally (my own work), so what else should I have posted in there besides that? MorrisS (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That's something you should mention when you post your WP:DRV entry. Of course, depending on how you worked out your rights with the Plain Dealer and HSC, you'll probably have to show some sort of evidence that you, and not the publishers of the images, own the rights. Also, it might help to upload the original, high-res photo straight from the camera, not the scaled down versions that appear on the websites. --Mosmof (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Dude, just undo my edit and that's cool. I don't even care that much. I just saw a report on, but yes you're right he isn't even joining that team anymore, so it's all good man. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Robinson[edit]

I put this in my edit summary when I redid my revision but I will post it here too.

Athlete pages point to the university page throughout wikipedia. Examples, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, John Stockton, Shaquille O'Neal, among many many others which means consensus on Wikipedia seems to be it should be the school page. I would hate to sound cliche, but he is a student/athlete, student comes first. Do not change it back without requesting a new consensus.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things: I think you're being a bit silly with the "student-athlete" label, which is the NCAA's branding tool and not how the public sees these athletes - you and I know that as students, they are nobodies. The only reason they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria is because they are basketball players. Also, listing articles don't tell us much since I can just as easily list examples of athletes whose colleges are mentioned by team, not school, articles: Vince Carter, Bill Russell, Jeremy Lin, Kevin Love, James Worthy, Bill Walton. There is no consensus on this issue. And I have trouble believing that you think where they took classes is more notable than whom they played for.
But I think there's a simple compromise - mention both in the intro. Does that work? --Mosmof (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's just basketball. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson just to name a few for football. It doesn't matter if their notability is as athlete or not, they are enrolled at University of __________, ____________ University, _______ College and the pages say "played college ________ at __________ (school)" and the page link should read such. Mentioning both is unnecessary because the infobox contains it--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And I could also list arbitrarily chosen articles: Tim Tebow, John Elway and Michael Vick. Again, let's not confuse inconsistency with consensus. And why shouldn't notability matter? Notability is the very currency that governs Wikipedia. And enrollment is a trivial detail compared to what they actually do to become notable. --Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It makes absolutely no sense to refer readers to a team page for a statement that requires the name of the school then turn around and show the name of the school as the display for the page. I have reverted to version prior to either one of us touching it. I will submit consensus request.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure it does - the team is the most notable way in which the athlete is affiliated with the university. People interested in KU through Robinson most likely couldn't give a crap about the endowment or the student body size or the concentrations offered, but would care about the university basketball team. But sure, seeking a third opinion is probably the best. --Mosmof (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding and willingness to compromise. I submitted it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Player pages--Rockchalk717 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I've responded, though haven't added much. --Mosmof (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Odom[edit]

Hey. Sorry about that, I jumped the gun a little and thought he'd been released. Thanks for pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Special Six (talkcontribs) 23:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the new word.[edit]

Learned a new word because of you: listicle. Never heard it before today at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 10#File:FIFA World Cup Trophy.jpg Thanks for teaching it to me. :D -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Craig Bellamy[edit]

Regarding your message - first, please don't tell give users vandalism warnings when they aren't actually engaged in vandalism. I have no earthly idea why you thought my edit was vandalism.

Second, please refer to WP:MOSLINK - articles shouldn't be linked to more than necessary - once in the lede, once in the infobox and once in the body are enough. --Mosmof (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This does not apply to Biography Infoboxes. -- (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes - but it's already linked inside the infobox. Why would you repeat the same link in the same section of an infobox? --Mosmof (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Robbie Keane Ian Rush Thierry Henry Robbie Fowler ect. - consistancy is vital -- (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
So I should edit those articles too? :D --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Image deleting[edit]

I am really not that into all this "new" image upload stuff, anyways, I had permission for these images (haven't asked one for Ben Wallace though) but if you have certain pleasure in removing every single image I ever uploaded feel free to do so. Nobody else ever had a problem. As for Mirko Malez picture, I made it myself, he's my relative, but never mind, my motives are merely to improve the articles... Much respect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N1cky (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 April 2012‎

Yes, I get that you're trying to improve the articles, but so am I - let's assume good faith and all that. But I don't take "pleasure in removing every single image I ever uploaded feel", so no, I won't be doing that (and haven't done that). If you have permission for using those Croatian footballer images, please ask the Croatian FA to send in a note to WP:OTRS stating they're forfeiting all copyrights on those images - they don't work as non-free images because they don't meet WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. And what do you mean "I made it myself"? Do you mean you took the photograph yourself? Again, if you have permission, don't upload it as a non-free image. --Mosmof (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Raúl (footballer)‎‎[edit]

Yes, I really wondered how it is possible to bring the wiki software to accept these edits. In most cases there would have been only edit conflicts. --Jaellee (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My Changes/Maria Kirilenko[edit]

I saw your note that said not to use words such as "currently" and to avoid using Youtube links. I corrected these things and yet my changes were still deleted with a message that the information added was trivia. I am now very confused because I thought that Wikipedia information was "trivia" and that is why people use it. I know that is why I use it and I know that when there is a change in a person's status, people are quick to want to correct it on here. So please, help me to understand why people would not want to know the information I added. It is very confusing to understand because what I added was fact (as I had two sources for it). Thanks. --Kittileen (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Her relationship status isn't that important to understanding her importance. We've already established that she and Ovechkin entered into a relationship - if it changes, we can update it, but that hasn't happened. Mosmof (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Marvin Williams?[edit]

You made an edit to revert my edits on Marvin Williams. The information is correct. Please undo your changes because they are correct. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalomlouiz (talkcontribs) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What was correct about them? Mosmof (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sergio Agüero[edit]

I do like a good edit summary and your recent one on this article was excellent. This project can be very po-faced at times so well done. danno_uk 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ruud van Nistelrooy[edit]

Hi there

Can you tell me why you keep reverting my IPA edits of the article? (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of revert tool (Twinkle)?[edit]

This edit appears to be a good faith edit, yet I see that you reverted the edit without any explaination shortly after? I'm not trying to hastle you or anything, but what gives? Could you not have asked for a citation? Regards, Outback the koala (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of both WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. I don't think any sourcing or fleshing out would've made the edit any better. The user's made similar edits with mostly meaningless plaudits, and after reverting a couple of those, I guess I got tired of leaving an edit summary. I know, poor form, so that's my mea culpa. FWIW, I get the impression that the editor isn't particularly serious about improving Wikipedia: [3]. --Mosmof (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Woah! I see now where you're coming from - fair enough indeed! Take care and happy editing! :) Outback the koala (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, happy editing to you as well! --Mosmof (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Michael Vick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boys and Girls Club (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) 11:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my own edits[edit]

I just started and someone keeps deleting my edits. Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the edit summaries to see why your content was edited? --Mosmof (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you doing??? I put a considerable amount of work to contribute to the Carmelo Anthony article to provide further informationa dnthen you just delete it. Before you delete something, you should do your own research to determine if it is incorrect and then make corrections or deletions where you deem fit. But to just completely delete my work and then claim it is based without research. It is through knowledge from reading and following the sport. Come on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 07:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's not how Wikipedia works. A couple of things - there's a reason why, before you submit an edit, you see this notice: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Because there's no ownership of articles, you should expect your contribution to be dismissed or heavily edited by other editors. That's part of the collaborative process. Second, Wikipedia does not allow original research or synthesis of published materials. That means that anything you include needs to come from a reliable, third party source. And specifically in the case of coincidences like teammates in prep All-Star games or arenas they played in, it amounts to synthesis. If a reliable source has noted that coincidence, then that's great. But if it's your own finding, then don't include it. --Mosmof (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I understand your response but its not entirely accurate. First, you mention that I can expect my contributions to be dismissed but I would think it would be done for the better interest of readers in mind. My contribution provided further and recent information about Carmelo experience with New York Knicks. Right now, the article is lacking information on this past 2011-2012 NBA season. Therefore, it is not up to date and I took care of that. Next, you indicated that Wikipedia does not allow original research. THat is not true because there is originaly research all over the place on this site and its not deleted. I also did cite references in my contribution. Lastly, I included references about teammates in prep All Star games because it was very unique. Carmelo, Raymond Felton and Amar'e Stoudemire all played in same 2002 McDonalds ALl Star game on the same team. That is one thing. Easily, one of them could hav eplayed in a different year or not all play in that game. Then as another part of it, the McDonald's ALl star game is hosted in a different city pretty much every year but that year, it took place at Madison Square Garden in New York City. That is the same arena that the New York KNicks play in and that the team where they all reunited. So for all of that to happen is very unique and worth noting. I also have a reliable source to note that coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem with your Carmelo Anthony edit about the 11-12 season was that it was your commentary, or your synthesis of other people's commentary. All opinions, analysis and commentary should be attributed to a reliable source.
  • If there is original research, then point it out or delete it. It's not a reason to have more original research.
  • Yes, it's unique for three teammates to have played in the same all-star game, but that doesn't mean it's notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. If a reliable, third party source makes a point of noting the coincidence, then great. Otherwise, it's just trivia. --Mosmof (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It wasn't my commentary. I am reporting what other major media news organizations is reporting. I am just reporting facts and providing a summary. NOne of it is my comments.
  • Also if we or me is going to delete original research, that would pretty much be the end of Wikipedia. Most articles contain a huge portion of original research. Thats the foundation of this site - original research.
  • ESPN and youtube has noted the coincidence. I also firmly believe that it will continue to be noted once the NBA season starts. In addition, when I made my first ever contribution, you indicated to me taht you liked my contribution. THerefore, to now state that you don't like it is contradictory to what you originally believed.

Thats it for now. I just wanted to communicate my feelings on the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 4 August 2012‎

  • Fair enough. But you should still attribute those commentaries to reliable sources.
  • I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what original research and synthesis mean.
  • I believe I thanked you for your contributions, but I don't think I ever expressed that your edits were beyond reproach. --Mosmof (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your input and suggestions for editing and making contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 05:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Dear Mosmof, I appreciate that you are trying to help, however if you do look at the bottom, I have a section full of resources, that if you actually read my article, you could see where they came into place. Another thing, I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not familiar with all the controls, that being my article is not a complete masterpiece. I am focusing on one thing, giving valuable, accurate information. Another thing, I know my references are not in top, midterm paper like condition, however they can be read and understood. If you think you can do better, than you find information on Pedro the Donkey, and reply back. I gladly except info. One more thing, about Joe Paterno, is that my statement was correct. On Sunday, July 22nd, work crews gathered at Beaver Stadium, and took his statue down. Check your response again. I'm afraid you were wrong about Joe Paterno, not me. Thanks! - Reporter 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter22 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for helping me get started! Nymusix (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Amare Stoudemire[edit]


I represent Amare Stoudemire's digital platforms. I have reverted back to my original changes to the first couple lines of his biography to be synonymous with his official website bio. Please let me know if you need reasons of why we consider Amare to be known for more than just a pro basketball player (author, motivational speaker, etc.)


Amare Stoudemire[edit]


I represent Amare Stoudemire's digital platforms. I have reverted back to my original changes to the first couple lines of his biography to be synonymous with his official website bio. Please let me know if you need reasons of why we consider Amare to be known for more than just a pro basketball player (author, motivational speaker, etc.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbricks33 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an e-mail where we can talk more extensively? I am somewhat confused on the changes you made and would like to educate myself on what is considered correct and incorrect in regards to edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbricks33 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Redknapp[edit]

If you're going to make a revision to an edit, at least bother to explain why........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Unfortunately I no longer have access to Wikimedia Commons, but if you could transfer the images of the A.C. Milan players that I have uploaded to English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons I would be grateful. MarkMysoe (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop uploading low-res files?
Please upload the original from Flickr, not the thumbnail. Just use Flinfo. It's super easy.--Mosmof (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank's Mosmof, for showing this Flinfo tool, I will use this tool next time to upload the original size of a image. Thank's again. MarkMysoe (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gary Gait[edit]

I'm wondering about your change adding the "weasel words" and "peacock term" templates. There are four different references on that sentence alone and they all clearly state the same thing - that not only do the authors consider Gait to be one of the best, if not the best, but many other share that opinion. The weasel words template says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I think there is plenty of attribution already. I suppose the "best player of all time" could be reworded, but all four of those references specifically state that opinion. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, the rest of the paragraph does nothing to support te "widely believed" claim. Sure, "it's supported by the cites, but it's sort of synthesis/original research to take those sources to say, "See, based on these sources I've collected, it's obvious he's widely considered to be the best." The reason we try to avoid "widely believed" and the like is because to the uninitiated, it's pretty meaningless. It's much more preferable to talk about awards or hall of fame inductions or even quote an authority figure. --Mosmof (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Patterson[edit]

You sure this is Patrick Patterson? This is an image of Patterson from Zagalejo^^^ 06:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Olympic Games scandals and controversies[edit]

The photos you are deleting from Olympic Games scandals and controversies all contain the same copyright notification:

"This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."

There is a clear rationale. They are significant historical events. The exact same historical event that cleared them for usage on their individual articles associated with the same involved individuals for the same reason; because they were Olympic Controversies. Deleting them from one place for a proper associated usage . . . an incident that happened before millions at the Olympics . . . but allowing them in another makes no sense. This is not an "other" usage, it is the same usage categorized from the opposite perspective (where it happened).

I see your history of deleting photographs from many articles based on WP copyright policies. Destructive as your work is, I can't argue with the legal points most of the time. In this case however, the policy you are following is playing games with semantics. There will never be an improvement in the copyright paperwork for these images and you know it. If there is an issue with some phrase in the wikipedia application to use the image, you as the expert, are far better qualified to FIX the clearance issue within the wikipedia system (however that is done) rather than to find excuses to damage public content.

I'm rolling it all back. Trackinfo (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:NFCC - there's a reason Wikipedia has a strict application of copyright laws, especially when it comes to using non-free images. These images do not have proper rationales attached, and as a list-like article, it's inappropriate to include non-free images here. I'm going to go ahead and remove the images again - please don't reinsert them without providing proper rationales. 17:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


...Hedgefall —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tysons, Virginia[edit]

A tag has been placed on Tysons, Virginia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kars4Kids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Grimm (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) 00:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community-Jewish relations[edit]

Hi Mosmof, be well. I wonder if it is possible to move the entry Ahmadiyya Muslim Community-Jewish relations to a shorter and better searchable 'name' ? I may suggest Ahmadiyya - Jewish Relations or even Ahmadiyya and Judaism or anything brief and easily remembered ? sincerely . --Gam zu l'tovah (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? I have no expertise on the subject and I have no idea what the standard format is, or whether there's any consequence to dropping the "Muslim". Mosmof (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindly response. Ahmadiyya, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Ahmadi or Ahmadiyya Movement, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at all the same. Using the briefer term and making the heading short and direct would do good and improve the Article. Gam zu l'tovah (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Elie Hirschfeld page[edit]

Hi, thank you for your suggestions. The reason I broke down the page is that there is way too much going on with Elie's recent art aquisitions and real estate transactions, that I felt they need separate sections so it would be easier to contribute/edit. Please do not roll "controversy" under "Personal" section as most of this is under the development and papers are styill in front of the judge. Once this case is resolved, we will have a better idea where to file it. Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyakushev (talkcontribs) 19:29, 22 May 2013‎

DYK for New York City FC[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Brandon Bass[edit]

No worries. Zagalejo^^^ 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Paterno may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Paterno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Common Pleas (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) 12:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


You are 100% correct so my apologies. As per Tello, he's a first team player but does not have a first team number (in Spain, all first team players are number 1-25). Can we change that now or does the July rule also apply? La Fuzion (K lo K) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no big deal. I'm not sure how to deal with Tello, since he did make first team appearances even though he wasn't listed as a first-team member. Mosmof (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Images[edit]

File:Romneycare.jpg + File:Obamacare.jpg Since I can't tell if their respective talk pages are the right places to bring it up, and I'm not sure where else to ask, I figured I'd ask you if there's any way, given appropriate attribution, the images can be used under fair use given the relevance to the page (such as 'historical importance')? And/or where/how acceptable images can be sourced? This was a mistake out of ignorance but it'd be a shame if there's not some way to preserve relevant image contact. Thank you Sb101 (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are those photos from the federal government and therefore in the public domain? In any case, I'm not very impressed, Mosmof, that you didn't try to be gentle with a new user and instead went the easy route of a quick template that looked all scary with a bolded block warning. It's no wonder Wikipedia active editors keep declining. II | (t - c) 02:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
They were both agency photos - one was a Getty Images photo and the other was an AP photo. I think we would have had a hard time arguing that they were acceptable non-free images because of WP:NFCC#2, and for an image to be considered historic, it can't just be one that shows an important event - the photo itself has to be iconic, and I don't think we could make a good argument for that.
II, I'm all for civility and gently guiding new users, and I'm happy to inform users who have questions (and I have no intention of scaring away new users), but those particular images were obviously copyrighted photos. I didn't mean for the tags to be big and scary, but I don't think the speedy delete was unjustified. Mosmof (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The template is a little overly blunt in my opinion, so don't take it personal. I usually follow-up a template with a short personal comment afterwards. It's more work but I think it is worth it. II | (t - c) 05:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hull City A.F.C.[edit]

Hi, some of the content you've added to Hull City A.F.C. isn't covered by the reference you've used. For instance, The Guardian do not explicitly mention the club being re-registered as 'Hull City Tigers Ltd'. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I added the Daily Mail link as source for re-registration. Is there anything else that needs citing? --Mosmof (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colette Carr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red One (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) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jermain Defoe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:
  • TFC TRANSFER|publisher=[[The Sports Network|TSN]]|first=Luke|last=Wileman|date=8 January 2014}}</ref> The transfer also includes an agreement between Tottenham and Toronto's owners, [[Maple Leaf

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Juan Mata[edit]

Please stop editing the Juan Mata page, you're adding information and not providing a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan1312 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure The Guardian is a reliable source. I'd urge you to double-check my edit. Mosmof (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I agree this should not be added at this time. Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL we should not be including speculative information regardless of the source. This is common Wikipedia practice in sport related articles. We normally don't post contracts and team moves until it is officially announced. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
But the provisional fee is not a speculative information. Sure, the transfer hasn't happened, but the provisional pee has been agreed to, in past tense. Whether or not the transfer ultimately happens, the fee agreement is real and seems noteworthy. Mosmof (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Mosmof, just dropped in to clarify why I made the changes I did after my inadequate explanation on my edit. Whilst I absolutely agree that a fee being agreed is noteworthy the sources of the news are also important. Ultimately, all sources from news websites like the BBC and The Telegraph must be treated as rumours and as such aren't valid. We need to wait until either of the clubs make an official announcement before we can add stuff, imagine if we took every 'agreed deal' from one of these websites, Wikipedia would be clogged up with incorrect information. If Moyes, Mourinho or someone else of a similar standing makes a statement on the issue then we can use that information in the article, but as it stands, it's all just speculation and as such, it shouldn't be included. Hope that all makes sense, kindest regards Mythical Curse (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Hey again, Mourinho's confirmed that a deal has been agreed which basically verifies the information you posted before, so you can re add. It's not essential that it's added now but it should be added at some point, whilst I don't like adding rumours to Wikipedia, I also don't like information being missed out. There's loads of cases on wiki like Willian's transfer (where there's no mention of Tottenham) where verified information wasn't added, creating an imperfect picture of what happened. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

Yep, I've added a quote from Mourinho. Mosmof (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What made you to delete the image File:Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Kindly let me know the reason behind removing the File:Steven Frayne Dynamo.jpg as well as give me the source(s) which indicate that the file has the copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag (talkcontribs) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, but I did tag the image as an obvious copyright violation because it was from Getty Images, I believe. Why don't you ask User:January who actually deleted the image. Also, it's poor form to use the level 3 template for someone who isn't actually being disruptive. Mosmof (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging proposal Discarded[edit]

Hi! Mosmof, it is not possible to merge both the articles together. Well, I have left a a message at Talk:Transparency International#Merging proposal Discarded Please review and response for the same. I've also removed the merger tag that you have placed in the articles Transparency International and Transparency International India. Iraag (talk)

Thanks for advice[edit]

Although, I am not going to remove the templates that you placed under the article Transparency International India for merging it with Transparency International. But for your knowledge let me inform you that I've started the articles Transparency International India and it is advised you to see the history of the article/ talk before leaving an message. Iraag (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Creating a article with title "Isrg Rajan"[edit]

Hi! Mosmof, Through this I would like to request you for creating an article entitled Isrg Rajan.
Thank you!
Iraag (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 5W Public Relations 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:
  • <ref>{{deadlink}{</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank you for removing vandalism from my talk page - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to Transfermarkt[edit]

The Transfermarkt website contains user-generated contributions and as such is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. The template was deleted last year due to this reason. See also here. Please do not add Transfermarkt links back into Wikipedia articles. Thanks, C679 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm actually not sure how that happened - I was updating an infobox image and I apparently included the link by mistake, though I have no earthly idea how. Mosmof (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MLS expansion[edit]

Why would you reverse my additions to this thread. Everything I added is know facts. Because you don't want to accept this is no reason to reverse the edit. Please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've explained why I reverted it. The column (and not a "report", as you say in your edit) says "MLS Commissioner Don Garber is giving the impression that the two cities are essentially on equal footing in terms of their chances of securing a big-league soccer team", which is different from "Garber considers Austin to be equal with San Antonio". The former is one columnist's opinion of the vibe Garber is sending out, which necessarily isn't an indication of what he's actually thinking. Mosmof (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


What is your sourcing for the Wilpons being "integral" to expansion in New York beyond Garber having acknowledged he'd had discussions with them? Also, the Cosmos section is appropriate as it stands given the fact that it's both a failed/stalled bid and a potentiality (at minimum one of more substantive value than at least three other markets listed -- including those not cited by Garber but listed anyway -- given the Cosmos bid's level of investment and attempts at a stadium). -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a source for it, but they were certainly in the picture as much as the Cosmos were. Given that MLS requires a substantial expansion fee and a deep-pocketed ownership group, it stands to reason that the Wilpons were the money guys. Plus, the Cosmos aren't actively pursuing expansion, so anything happening now is unrelated to the main topic. Mosmof (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If we're being anecdotal, I've been following this since 2009 and the Wilpons were never involved beyond discussions about Queens property and/or their own potential bid, and certainly not with the Cosmos according to anything that can be properly attributed. As for the future of the Cosmos themselves, their owners have stated that they feel the market can "support four teams," seeks to be "at the top of US soccer," and is seeking an MLS-sized stadium, just a couple of years after stating it was their "unequivocal goal" to be in MLS. And, to be anecdotal again, national and NY-area soccer writers have openly speculated that remaining in the second division as the pyramid is currently constituted is not their "endgame." See no need to change the passage. -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to DeSean Jackson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:
  • Redskins]] to a reported three-year, $24 million contract with $16 million guaranteed.<ref>{{cite news|url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Carribbean (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) 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)