User talk:72Dino

Nectar Design

Dino,

I am affiliated with the company Nectar Design, a company that made a series of edits to its Wikipedia page on August 9th of which you reversed most. I'm approaching you in good faith because there are factual errors on the page, as well as some relevant additions in terms of the notability of the company that I believe are relevant to the page. I would like to provide someone with the pertinent information and source material to make some necessary changes given my COI.

Would you say that this is the best course of action? Please advise, and thank you. Terry the Polar Bear (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The best approach, per WP:COI, is to post your proposed edit at Talk:Nectar Design along with the corresponding references. Another editor will post the edit for you or make comments. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-a

	Hello 72Dino, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for for your efforts at the Chick-Fil-a articles.! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

your response

thanks so much for your response, so exciting to add current information at my first attempt to update a wiki page. Your response was a bit odd, as your question was answered if you had read the updated text. i see you've had it deleted, so i will enjoy navigating wikipedia to add this current vital, factual information back to the page. MarkG68 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The standard template about your edit didn't fit perfectly so it could have been confusing. You added content regarding a living person, so I recommend you read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy carefully. You need references from reliable sources per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The article about the web site may not even be the best place for content about this individual. You may want to start a discussion at Talk:ProtectMarriage.com to see if your edit should be included. I will also send you a welcome notice that spells out some of the policies, etc. on Wikipedia that I think you will find helpful. Happy editing! Regards, 72Dino (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

joseph smith

hi, thanks for bringing to my attention that I need to leave a reason for editing a page. i didn't know that. I looked up Joseph Smith and noticed that the very first line was Joseph Smith was 'a big fat liar'. I believe this is a subjective remark that needed to be removed. I noticed when editing that the line in question was hidden by code in the first half of the sentence, so I deleted that. Hope this clears up what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjohnson73 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those edit summaries come in handy. What it looks like happened was that a bot saw the liar remark and reverted it. Your edit actually removed "an American religious leader and", so that is what I restored. It looks like everything is back to normal after the vandalism that you were trying to correct. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Shelby Mustang

07:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: 16:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Mustang#Unique_Performance

The post made was an addition to the Original Existing Unreferenced Bold post (listed below) to clear up confusion based upon the namesake of the product and the person in question;

It should be noted that the car featured in the movie and the subsequent vehicles produced by Unique are in fact not considered Shelby’s by any standard.

The edit in question (listed below) that has been removed which did not remove existing content but only to clarify the statement of the original posting;

It should be noted that the car featured in the movie and the subsequent vehicles produced by Unique are in fact not considered Shelby’s (In reference to being officially made/created/modified by the Brand/Make 'Shelby' and not the personal ownership of Carroll Shelby the person) by any standard.

The original statement did not have a reference and thus should not be removed. The clarification statement which has been added did not have a reference as it did not need one. It was referencing the existing statement. The original statement was preexisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.74.143 (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are asking here. I removed the content because it was unclear, did not have a reference, and its formatting violated MOS:TEXT and WP:OPED. Are you saying the vehicles manufactured by Unique Performance are not considered "real Shelbys" by SAAC or vintage racing or concours organizations? Adding a reference may help clarify and verify the edit. 72Dino (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted your edit - I saw what you saw but it didn't make any sense so I dug further. The guy does have an account: Special:Contributions/Korentop and: User_talk:Korentop. Don't know why it came up bad at first, for both of us....99.102.212.191 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Spent a little bit of WP:BOLD and corrected the registered user's sig...99.102.212.191 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed odd when it came up that there was no such account (it looked like the editor just replaced the IP address signature with an unregistered name), but it does seem to work fine now. 72Dino (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Prop 8

Sorry about removing those extra references, it was an oversight on my part.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. 72Dino (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems one editor is disputing that we have consensus for the prop 8 edit. This isn't an RfC, so I don't know how to proceed. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little green rosetta (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The next step in dispute resolution is to put out a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (so it will become an RfC). That will get more people looking at the issue. 72Dino (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Edit-warring follow-up

Dino, thanks for your polite note at WP:ANEW. I didn't look at the dispute in any depth because I was more focused on the procedural aspects, but if I understood properly, there were two problems with the IP's edits from your point of view. First, they sometimes put in information that wasn't supported by the source at all, and, second, they sometimes put in information that was sourced but inconsistent with other sources in the article and therefore misleading (something about counting things that shouldn't be counted). Either way, it's always difficult to combat these kinds of problems. The first step is to achieve a consensus on the talk page about the content and the sourcing. Then, you have to enforce the consensus without edit-warring. If you have a broad enough consensus (multiple editors), usually that puts the lone anti-consensus editor in a difficult position because they will breach 3RR before any other individual editor does. It bothers me to even say that because it sounds like I'm recommending edit-warring, but this scenario is often a reality. Otherwise, you are faced with either convincing an administrator that the IP's edits are disruptive and should be blocked on that basis or going through WP:DR. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've been editing long enough to know to start the discussion on the article talk page as well as the user talk page (which didn't work), but for some reason I didn't think to do that. Luckily another editor has reverted the IP. If the incorrect information is inserted again, I will definitely address at the article talk page. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Info in financial disclosures, see opensecrets.org

Other item mistake on my part.

The site opensecrets.org does not appear to be a reliable source, just a primary source subject to interpretation. Please use a secondary source, such as a newspaper/magazine/academic journal, to put information like that in a biography. I figured the blanking was an error. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

thx for your understanding about the blanking.

the Opensecrets source is NOT subject to interpretation as it is a copy of Ryan's financial disclosure.--Tuco_bad 11:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

You may want to start a discussion at Talk:Paul Ryan on why you think that content should be added. Cheers, 72Dino (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed Merge =(

Sorry, I didn't see your comment on the talk page. I'd already started merging - badly. Someone else will have to do it... -LatestAutos→ talk 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, nothing that can't be undone. Just so you know, these discussions usually last a week or so rather than a day (particularly with a holiday weekend in the U.S.). After others have weighed in, if I were you I would seek the help of an admin to make the merger. 72Dino (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I think I don't have enough experience yet. I thought editing Wikipedia was easy - it isn't! -LatestAutos→ talk 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing for almost six years and there is still a lot for me to learn. But enjoy anyway! 72Dino (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -LatestAutos→ talk 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work

Here. NTox · talk 18:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice comment. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 72Dino. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Sorry!

It's all good! JC · Talk · Contributions 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney dog incident

Not a dead link. Sorry, but I thought it was dead when I tried to access it. GIGO. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Who knows, it may have been down when you tried it. No worries. 72Dino (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for yor help!

	Eureka!
	Thanks for your help improving the SaveCalifornia.com article and for challenging me to add links to my NewsBank citations. Now that you have helped me discover this nugget of information, I will be able to improve my source citations. It's pure gold! Thanks again! – MrX 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(For 72Dino) I wouldn't have asked you to make the edit yourself, but thanks for restoring the adjective and for being very reasonable about it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Cal State Fullerton

Thanks for the welcome. Some of the minor edits i made including adding a few photos on the notable section were deleted. Not sure why. Is there something that needs to be done to make sure the bot doesn't delete the edits (minor edit and explanation?) Any help would be appreciated Tkmahi 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkmahi (talk • contribs)

There were quite a few edits in a row, so when I rolled them back to restore the references some valid edits may have been deleted. If you want to go back and put in a couple of images, that would be okay by me. Putting some at List of California State University, Fullerton people may also be good as it doesn't have any right now. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to learn more about how to use pictures in articles. Good luck! 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!

Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Under Armour Sponsorships

Hey Dino. Instead of deleting all of the sponsored athletes that are unsourced, why don't you instead help us look for the sources? All the information you deleted is in fact true, I just haven't found the time link them to their sources yet. If you don't want to help, you could at least tag the section saying it needs additional citations for verification rather than just deleting half of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmoreterp12 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the person adding content to provide the references. I had the section tagged earlier and notified users on the talk page. How do you know this information is true? If you know this from a reliable source, then add that source. If you know it because you are involved with the company, then see WP:COI. 72Dino (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Yes I understand that references must be provided and no I am not involved in the company. But, I feel you should not simply delete information that is true without references. Take a look at these pages, List of Nike sponsorships, List of Adidas sponsorships. A lot of the sponsored athletes have no references, but editors are not just going to delete the information. The information is true, but the writers have not yet found sources so the article was tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmoreterp12 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Under Armour article had been mostly unsourced for a long time. I don't know how editors would now it's true information without reading it (which means they have a source) or doing original research (which is not allowed). Reviewing the WP:Verifiability policy will probably explain more about this better than I can. Regarding the Nike and Adidas sponsorship articles, those should also be referenced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good essay on comparing articles. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mentioned your name

Thank you for mentioning my name on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mangoeater1000. I was going to comment, but swift action was taken by an administrator and the user was promptly banned. My first encounter with this user was on the article Institute of Technology (United States), and right away exhibited a lack of civility. The user then made it a personal issue and started erasing my comments and trying to "offend" me (honestly I don't give a flying duck about his/her alleged "insults", and rather found them to be quite humorous). I have put your user page and related articles on my watch-list, but feel free to contact me at any time. Best regards. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  17:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 72Dino. You have new messages at Template talk:LDS Temple/Hartford Connecticut Temple.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Facts

Video evidence of mormans giving the oath is evidence enough. You would prefer people claiming they saw the ceremony rather then VIDEO PROOF? Sounds like you are just mad that your church was exposed =\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.121.45.234 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Anyone can make a YouTube video. You need an acceptable reference. 72Dino (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop vandalism

Don't revert my edits in Cal State Fullerton. I don't appreciate it--Nrkayithi2 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then stop adding incorrect, unsourced information to the article. And you should edit only under one account (see WP:SOCKPUPPET.) 72Dino (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Dipankan001. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of Nike sponsorships because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. @DipankanUpgraded! ^{Tag me!} 07:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of Nike sponsorships#Basically completely unsourced from a couple of weeks ago. This content was tagged as unsourced for over four years. I know such a large removal of content looks like vandalism, but it's not in this case. I am going to hide the content but leave it in the article to help those editors that want to add references. Also, WP:DTTR. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Time to face reality

Please don't revert the election results. References abound. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything is projections at this point. Obama will very likely win (although Romney is leading the popular vote.) But this is an encyclopedia, not the news. We should wait until it's official. 72Dino (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

72Dino's got a point. Romney hasn't conceded the election, yet. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Long overdue in my opinion. One more for the collection. Congratulations! Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm

See if you can remove those indictments with a revert when they hit. I don't think it will work the same way. I guess you guys have some bad feelings since your hero Romney got creamed out there. No one wants a mormon president. Jail time for your leaders I think. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.136.172 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons about unsourced content. 72Dino (talk)

I didn't know that the church was a person protected by BLP. I note you police these church articles with an iron fist of tyranny, reverting any content which shows a balanced view of LDS topics. No matter, the mormon church will fade back into obscurity after the election. Nice faux peau I noted in the churchs press releases after the election to distnace themselves from Romney. Guess since he lost they have no further use for him and are doing damage control for their machinations during the election. I hear the Obama administration is purging government agencies of mormons now do to information leaks. A lot of folks being fired I hear for acting as subversives. I have a copy of that 19th century fiction novel titled the BOM. I do read it at times. Alma is a nice piece of fiction. Anyway. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.136.172 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)