User talk:Mukogodo

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


Hello, Mukogodo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Molly Burnett[edit]

The Denver Post is fine: IMDB isn't. Please remember that biographies are held to a higher standard than other topics. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about edit summaries[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Plains zebra[edit]

Hello Mukogodo. I'm wondering why you deleted the descriptions of two instances of aggressive interaction between plains zebras and wildebeest from Plains_Zebra#Interactions_with_other_grazers. Unless you feel strongly that they have to go, I would like to restore them, but still keeping the sentence you added ("However, aggressive interactions occasionally occur.") as this is helpful. Would you have any objection to my doing this? --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thianks for your reply on my talk page. You make a good point about undue weight. I will leave it as you have made it. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jackal Buzzard[edit]

I've moved the article back to the single name. Bird names follow the IOC List], and even if we decide to deviate from that list in general Wikipedia articles do not have dual names (unless the things is commonly refered to with both names ([Matiu / Somes Island]] as an example) . Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit restriction warning[edit]

Please be aware of this Arbitration Committee decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. Edit warring in this topic area will result in blocking, changes must be discussed. --Daniel 00:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Fern[edit]

If you're so interested in Fanny Fern, you would be a huge help at her article (Fanny Fern) or the article on Ruth Hall. Remember to source properly, etc. I'm worried that you're changing sourced information on an approved featured article at N. P. Willis. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at my note again, it looks a little threatening, which was not my intention. Rather than push you away from Willis, my goal was to encourage you to work on two articles that really could use the help! Sorry if it seemed rude, impolite, etc. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Swaggart[edit]

In the Jimmy_Swaggart#Controversies.2C_scandals_and_criticisms section, it already says:

In 1988, Swaggart was implicated in a sex scandal involving a prostitute that resulted initially in his suspension and ultimately Swaggart was defrocked and removed from the ministry by the Assemblies of God. Three years later, Swaggart was again implicated in a sex scandal involving a prostitute. As a result, Swaggart's current ministry is non-affiliated, non-denominational and significantly smaller than it was in the ministry's pre-scandal years.

The section you are adding to the lead virtually replicates this, saying:

Sexual scandals in the late 1980s and early 1990's led the Assemblies of God to defrock him, and to his temporarily stepping down as the head of Jimmy Swaggert Ministries.

In essence, you're replicating what has already been said in the controversies section. Placing this element in the lead of the article, in fact the second paragraph, gives undue weight to the scandal. If you wish to add to the controversies section, please feel free. I invite you to remove your replicating commentary in the lead though. I hope you do so. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your point, but all parts of intro summaries are covered also in main articles. As for relative coverage, compare the articles for Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker, which give even more attention to their relevant scandals in their Intros. --Mukogodo
    • So what's to stop us from replicating everything in the article into the lead then? This piece is already covered lower in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Jetstreamer. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jetstreamer Talk 10:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Gould Shaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian (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) 11:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sean Hyman[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sean Hyman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. AllyD (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson robbery case[edit]

Thanks for restoring the previous version on the O. J. Simpson robbery case page. Unclear why the other unidentified user was blanking the participants section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Holistic management[edit]

Thanks for your input on the Holistic management page. In general I believe the changes you made are helpful.

There are two changes I would like to discuss though. (to see if another option can be done that is acceptable)

Starting with no-til farming being one use of holistic management system. NCAT-ATTRA is in fact both using and monitoring the effect of integration of holistic management principles into the standard no til model of agriculture used by the majority of farmers in the USA. I have confirmed that personally by talking to a farmer involved with the project. (Brown farm) They are using both cover crops between cash crops and integration of animals to forage those cover crops in a rotational system. Not sure why you simply removed that use of holistic management. It was referenced. Maybe you didn't thoroughly investigate the references? Here is a link to a webinar put out by ATTRA and posted on youtube. I didn't post this link on the Holistic management wiki page simply because it is a youtube vid and not acceptable as a source, Nor does it directly focus on holistic management, more on the actual farming methods, but it possibly could be useful to you personally in giving you ideas on a better way to include this use of holistic management into the article? Rather than deleting the whole thing? (PS I also incorporate holistic management into a different less standard version of no-til but of course original research is not allowed in a wikipedia article, so I didn't include my own project)

The second thing I would like to discuss is you removing the last paragraph from the criticism section. While I tend to agree with you that vegetarian and eco-extremist criticisms of Holistic planned grazing are pretty much irrelevant. Certainly they tend to be more dogmatic than logical. One has to accept the fact that in every forum where Holistic planned grazing is discussed they are in fact the most vocal critics. I don't agree with them. I agree with you that in the majority of cases their criticisms are irrelevant. But to maintain NPOV I included the most reasonable argument I could find that they make. Why would you take that off the criticism section? Surely you wouldn't want to turn a blind eye to the fact that these people exist would you? You don't have to agree with them (I don't), just acknowledge they have and are criticizing. Please reply on the Holistic management talk page so all can see and possibly join in the discussion for a chance of consensus. Thanks Redddbaron (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Hello Mukogodo. We may be interpreting the same sentence in the Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec article in two different ways. I interpret "Henri suffered from congenital health conditions traditionally attributed to inbreeding" to mean that historians have traditionally attributed Lautrec's health problems to his family's history of inbreeding. Your edit summary suggests that you interpret it as characterizing any single-event cousin marriage as likely to result in health problems. But numerous historians have described Lautrec's health conditions as the result of "a history of inbreeding" or "much inbreeding". Armand Marie Leroi writes, in Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body: "Whatever his disorder, it seems that he shared it with several other members of his family. By the time Henri Marie Raymond, Comte de Toulouse-Lautrec-Montfa, was born in 1864 his family, though still rich, was quite inbred. The Napoleonic abolition of primogeniture had prompted an already much-reduced French nobility to keep what wealth remained in their families by the simple expedient of not marrying out of them. Henri's parents were first cousins, as were his aunt and uncle: between them they produced sixteen children, of whom four including Henri were dwarfed, the other three far more severely than he." The National Gallery website says "it is likely that Lautrec suffered from a bone disease (perhaps owing to the numerous consanguineous marriages in the family)". I've rewritten the passage to clarify the intended meaning. Ewulp (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nairobi fly 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:
  • The name '''Nairobi eye''' (or '''Nairobi fly''' or '''Kenya fly''' is applied to two species of [[beetle]] which live in [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable content[edit]

You've removed sourced content, and I can't see why. First of all, your opinion of whether it's probable is not really relevant, see WP:TRUTH. Second of all, why do you keep mentioning Berlin? hgilbert (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring and original research[edit]

They don't go well together. You looked at the table and wrote your own conclusions that Greece is last in the European Union in terms of the HDI. This is called original research WP:OR. When I reverted you, you insisted and reverted back. But you were wrong. You forgot other countries in the European Union which were below Greece in the table such as: Cyprus, Estonia, Slovakia, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Portugal, Latvia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria. That's almost half the European Union. So please remember: If the words are yours and not in the reference, it is original research. I will leave also an original research notification and a 3RR warning for future reference. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Greece. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoology mnemonic[edit]

I have now created a special page List of King Philip mnemonics, for the "King Philip" / "King Phillip" mnemonics, which also includes mnemonics beginning with the words "Kings", "Keep", "Kids" and "Kiss", with a link to the page from the Zoology mnemonic page. The special page will allow for future additions of various types of mnemonics to be added to it. Figaro (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


I responded to your post on my talk page. Please sign your posts per WP:SIG. Please also assume WP:GOODFAITH. Why don't we use the article's talk page to discuss changes and work on improving the article together? Cheers. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 February[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Smith[edit]

Hi, Regarding this edit, I think you might be confusing Smith's "First Vision" (which was reported long after the fact) with his 1823 visitation and subsequent visits to the hill (which he told his family about at the time). Specifically, regarding the last part of the edit, the visits to the hill were well publicized at the time, and we can confidently say in Wikipedia's voice that "On September 22, 1827, Smith made his last annual visit to the hill" instead of the more awkward "Smith said that he made his last annual visit to the hill on September 22, 1827". There were several witnesses to this: his mother stayed up all night, he took his wife with him, he borrowed his neighbor's wagon to do it, and practically the whole neighborhood knew the date. That he went to the hill on that date is entirely uncontroversial; what he said he found there is another matter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the written documentation of this event is only well after the fact.
I'd be worried if written documentation showed up before the fact. In any case, rather than trying to be historians ourselves, I think our best bet is to try to follow what other "reliable sources" have said on the matter... As far as I know, they all agree that he did in fact go to the hill on September 22, 1827. They only disagree in their speculation on what he did there. Dan Vogel, for instance, says that he spent the night making a fake set of plates from tin. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


I have been asked by a dendrological club to write something about the Acacia / Vachellia matter, and if you have any ideas about sources that I should consult, any would be greatly appreciated. Any general ideas also welcome. JMK (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ami Bera[edit]

In regards to this removal, I can see this page and I'm not a subscriber so I have no idea what's wrong in that regard. I had a copy saved at if that helps. Separately, what does whether or not editors can see something online have to do with removing it? There are plenty of sources listed that aren't available online. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)