Jump to content

User talk:Mosmof: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
And now you're harassing me with angry edit summaries. Go figure. Please go away.
JoesphBarbaro (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 122: Line 122:
:Why are you bugging me repeatedly over a single comment? Just chill and leave me alone. [[User:Mosmof|Mosmof]] ([[User talk:Mosmof#top|talk]]) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:Why are you bugging me repeatedly over a single comment? Just chill and leave me alone. [[User:Mosmof|Mosmof]] ([[User talk:Mosmof#top|talk]]) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::You're pathetic. [[User:JoesphBarbaro|JoesphBarbaro]] ([[User talk:JoesphBarbaro|talk]]) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::You're pathetic. [[User:JoesphBarbaro|JoesphBarbaro]] ([[User talk:JoesphBarbaro|talk]]) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I swear, you're extremely stupid and oblivious. Open your eyes, unless you need to see an eye doctor that is. [[User:JoesphBarbaro|JoesphBarbaro]] ([[User talk:JoesphBarbaro|talk]]) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


==here is your source==
==here is your source==

Revision as of 13:48, 15 May 2015



NYCFC

Shouldn't the team nick name come from the fans? Because that's how teams get their nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only1bigc (talkcontribs) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 26 January

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) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool FC

Hi Mosmof, Could i just inquire about the reasons as to why you constantly remove my contributions to the 'rivalries' section Liverpool FC page? You did say it was my POV but It's actually a factual account complete with (though incorrectly inserted) cited reference. The overall section on the rivalries is miss leading to the casual reader as it is, as there really should be a 'citation needed' insert at the end of the "rivalry intensified after Manchester Utd became the first English team to win a European cup" line. To say Liverpool's four European cup wins coincided with their domination of English football is a fact bore out by their Honours list in the same article aswell as my referenced add-on. I do think the overall section is miss leading to the casual reader without it.Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for leaving a message. My thinking is that "domination" is a little bit of a peacock term and the reader would be served better by simply stating the numbers (and looking at that passage again, I should probably edit the part about Manchester United "dominating" English football as well.
FYI, this edit broke the formatting on the page - when you have a line break followed by a period, it messes up the rest of the line.
Again, thanks - let me know if my latest edit works for you. Mosmof (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the prompt response and the appropriate re-editing.Also apologies for the mix-up with the format. Just one more point, i do also feel the line mentioned about the rivalry intensifying in the 60's after Manchester Utd's European cup win is also a little dubious and slightly miss-leading to the casual reader. I do feel if this is the case then it either needs a citation or i could reference claims that the rivalry actually intensified in the 1970's after Liverpool started their successful period with their first of their eleven league titles in that period. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coop City

Coop City is not a police force, just look at their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.236.207 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing indicating they're not a private police force. In fact, their badge features the words "N.Y. POLICE" and their Twitter handle is titled "Co-Op City Police" and its website features a logo with the word "community policing at its finest". So yeah, if we go by their own description, CC Public Safety is indeed a police force. Mosmof (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding citing sources

What is the best way to cite information if it is from a book, which I can't find as an e-book to be read online? Is it better off just to leave off wiki if that's the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.227.50 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 31 January 2015‎

Books are certainly welcome - you can read more about citing sources at WP:CITE (this section will show you what information to include), and the {{Cite book}} template is useful for organizing the source information. Also, sometimes (but not always), you can use books.google.com to link to specific pages in books. Hope this helps. Mosmof (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there MOSMOF, from Portugal,

I have started a WP:FOOTY I discussion, I am 99,99999999999% sure that what you and the other user are doing in this article is wrong (if you link a WP article more than once it's overlinking, period), but let's wait for more opinions.

Also, if you two were correct, why wikilink only River Plate and not the other club from Malaysia? And I don't see the need to write "free agent" in the introduction because the box will already tell you that. Don't worry I won't remove it again, a bit tired of pointless edit wars, it stays your way.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out you are right about WP:OVERLINKING, though it's a guideline that seems to be rarely put into practice. As for your point about "free agent" not being needed because it's in the infobox, the problem is that if you apply your logic, we'd be removing a lot more information from the lede that's redundant with the infobox - name, date of birth, clubs he's played for, etc. That the lede duplicates a lot of the information isn't a problem - the point of the introduction is to summarize the content in the article body, and the infobox just gives an overview of the player's career. They serve different, albeit overlapping, purposes. Mosmof (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liverpool F.C. 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:
  • Total titles won (1871–present)]] have won more European trophies than any other English team]] with five [[UEFA Champions League|European Cups]], three [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cups]] and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miami River (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) 09:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

This is despite me clearly putting in a credible independent source that contradicts him? Kingjeff (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You read the message and understand how WP:3RR works, yes? And your source and the IP's source aren't necessarily contradictory. Mosmof (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. But I don't consider his source a credible source. Kingjeff (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have a disagreement that's not going to be solved by edit-warring. Mosmof (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually going to be my next post on the ip's talk page. Since, you're online, do you mind if you look at this AfD? Kingjeff (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an edit which uses both sources - Bild (or at least people translating from German) calls it "demotion", HSV says "he's getting extra match action". The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
As for the AfD, yeah, I think it's a clear delete, though it looks like whoever edited tried their best. Mosmof (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stoudemire

Stoudemire has been officially waived, so everything is changed in the article – just like every other case. We don't have to wait until he "clears waivers". Once the team announces it, thats it. He is no longer with the Knicks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wallace

I made the changes to the Mike Wallace page because someone vandalized it. An unregistered user changed a bunch of stats along with his 40 yd dash time. The career stats that I put in were accurate according to NFL.com, Yahoo, ESPN, etc. I'm going to undo your changes because his career stats are no longer correct. Nuttster99 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I couldn't tell that you reverted all of the IP editor's vandalism so I went back to the last version by an established editor. Sorry if that was in error. Mosmof (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for being so reasonable at Talk:MLS Cup. For that, you get the official sign of American soccer friendship. Achowat (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minnesota United FC (MLS) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minnesota United FC (MLS) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota United FC (MLS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Jensen

Is it OK to create a article about for example Jonas Jensen goalkeeper at Esbjerg fB? Ha has played several matches in the danish 1st division, and is currently playing for at team in the danish superliga, but hasn't played any matches in the superliga? Fodbold-fan (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

I was just going to warn User talk:208.81.212.222 and User talk:Mikemor92 about the edit warring that they've engaged in. I see that you warned the anon but not Mikemor92. At best, it's quite bias of you. At worst, shows a complete lack of integrity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, easy there. As far as I could tell, only the IP editor reached 3RR, and Mikemor was still at 2. If I counted wrong, then you can feel free to tag the other user as well. Though it would behoove you to tone down your rhetoric a notch. Mosmof (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ronn Torossian

The topic has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cada mori (talkcontribs) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the user page message. I will modify it.TorossianRonn (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! Mosmof (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Channel

I was being "unnecessarily hostile"? Yeah right. The 168th Street image is quite shaded in parts. The Broad Channel and the Far Rockaway image are more clearer and neat. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Think before you speak. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another random member who doesn't even edit any of the New York City Subway articles, nor knows nothing about the New York City Subway itself. Yeah, thanks for your "unnecessarily hostile" comment at that sockpuppet's page. Sit down and watch how I myself edit. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bugging me repeatedly over a single comment? Just chill and leave me alone. Mosmof (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're pathetic. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, you're extremely stupid and oblivious. Open your eyes, unless you need to see an eye doctor that is. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is your source

[1] Skippypeanuts (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]