User talk:HectorMoffet: Difference between revisions

New year, new page

Hi Hector, my apologies in advance for not knowing how to correctly format a discussion on a talk page. I'm one of the main tech developers behind thedaywefightback.org. I'd love to catch up to discuss our project overlaps and ways we can help each other out. Feel free to shoot me an email which can be found on my homepage(http://thomasdav.is).

Thomasalwyndavis (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Book of Mormon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Martin Harris

Mosiah priority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mosiah

The Healing of the Nations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:PD-NJGov, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. January (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kevin O'Dowd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. John’s University

Patrick Foye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nassau County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HectorMoffet. You have new messages at Rybec's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, HectorMoffet. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 19:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matty.007 19:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you either collapse the whole section about repeating a TFA or none of it? At present, you seem to want to cut off discussion with opponents of your proposal yet also you seem to want to keep the option of repeating a TFA open, however slim-to-non-existent that option's chance of success. And why are you ignoring the established method for the community to discuss TFA appearances - WP:TFAR? With few exceptions (such as the need to avoid too similar articles too close together, other things being equal) I schedule all nominations within the rules that are made there and gain approval. In nearly 10 years of TFA, a TFA has been repeated just three times - doesn't that tell you how exceptional the circumstances have to be, and how "The Day We Fight Back" just isn't in the same league? I'm amused that you think I'm angry at this proposal - it's just a sad waste of your time to work on an overall proposal that is never going to be accepted by the community in general (as discussions elsewhere have already shown), and on a specific sub-proposal that even your co-workers on this plan can see is a non-starter. Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here with Bencherlite, I don't think it's a good idea to suggest repeating a TFA at this point in time. Good luck with the initiative, — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Day We Fight Back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (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) 08:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hector - Posting a message on a user talk page that begins with "You were supportive of the idea that Jehochman proposed" is a clear breach of wp:canvass where it says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". I am fairly ambivalent about the Surveillance awareness day proposal myself and I admire your enthusiasm, but I would suggest you remove those messages you posted ASAP before someone makes a complaint. Richerman (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, a helpful link to Canvassing never hurts, but if you look at the proposal, we are NOWHERE NEAR a poll where !votes are being offered. The proposal is still being drafted, I sincerely don't even know WHAT is being proposed yet-- so I was inviting people to see if they agree with how the proposal is written or if they would like to help re-write it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft space. Since you had some involvement with the Draft space redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HectorMoffet. Thank you for participating in DYK. I thought I should let you know that the above nomination was already reviewed by someone else three days before you did. For QPQ towards your own nomination of USA Freedom Act, you may want to pick another nomination to review. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HectorMoffet. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 17:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HectorMoffet. You have new messages at Jaydubya93's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've asked at WP:RM that it be moved back to Fourth Amendment Protection Act. The final "s" isn't used in any of the sources I found. —rybec 05:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving things relating to the proposed Surveillance Awareness Day from the Wikipedia space into your userspace. Given the amount of discussion and contribution by others, you cannot unilaterally take it into your userspace. Bencherlite^Talk 16:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to store my incoherent scribblings wherever we want, but we will not conflate future proposals with my own paltry brainstormings about a main page takeover which nobody liked, not even supporters, and which never even reached a point where it had my own support. I can't let my errors be used as a red-herring to sink a completely separate idea from a completely different group of users. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that you deleted the RfC without asking anyone. If you want to explain about the discussions/proposals at WP:Surveillance awareness day in any future discussion (although the tags on the pages are a clue), please do, but please don't make it look as though they never existed. I've added the long talk-page history that you deleted without archiving to /archive 2, incidentally, as I think you forgot this step. Bencherlite^Talk 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the archival; I just know that if you personally know how SAD was never anything more than one user's pipe dream, as you were instrumental in the conversation demonstrating as such. If you are confused about whether Rybec was proposing a main page takeover, other readers without your background are going to be even more confused by a prominent link to a completely different idea. SAD is dead, it was never alive, and the discussions held there do not merit the attentions of the entire community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can make sure you see this, in case you don't check back to my talk page, please explain the purpose of User:HectorMoffet/likelyunneededinfo with reference to WP:UP#POLEMIC points two and / or three. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all I'm going to do with that information is request its deletion once I see your behavior doesn't need the attention of the wider community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I look forward to the page's prompt deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 19:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:WikiProject Mass surveillance redundant to WP:WikiProject Intelligence? — Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. In my impression, WP:WikiProject Intelligence has a wider scope. Intelligence includes monitoring of military forces, non-allies, etc. So, some of their pages are J. Robert Oppenheimer, D-Day naval deceptions, Klaus Fuchs-- none of which are that focused on mass surveillance.

By Mass surveillance, I think we're primary focusing on spying on whole populations of people, especially when a government spies on its own population or allied populations. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's spying ... done by those who practice the field of intelligence. I just fear all these projects are symptoms of splintering and with each one there's risk of a lack of focus. — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that redirect doesn't look useful. Perhaps you would ask to have it deleted? —rybec 12:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, HectorMoffet. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- HectorMoffet (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut WP:SETEC

Your vote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney looks weird because it is a copy of the other vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, I know-- but I'm new at [WP:FPC]], so I want to make sure I learn the standard before I make original observations. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you would use the standard voting options at WP:FPC (support, weak support, weak oppose, oppose). This way the closer doesn't have to guess, what you mean with "wow" and "I like". Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view." I know I'm not neutral. However I am very aware of that fact, and as a result I am especially conscientious about editing neutrally. I would have pointed this out on the Talk page had I not already done so rather recently.

With respect to you wanting to have a "time out" imposed on me, I actually think it would be a good idea for us to go to the Admin noticeboard, as you seem to be much more interested in me as an editor than in my edits (e.g. your neglecting to appreciate the fact I never actually edited that BLP you say I committed a gross "error on") and your interest appears to be quite sustained. You started a new Talk section calling on other editors to challenge my editing on Wikipedia generally and I find that quite an unusual move. Surely the appropriate place for that would be on an administrator noticeboard given that the clear instruction on the Talk page to editors is "limit discussion to improvement of this article." Note that the article is not equivalent to me. So how would you like to approach this? Is there another way to address your concerns about me? Would you object if I initiated the process saying that you had called on the community to WP:HOUND an editor? How about alternatively focusing on content issues and asking for further comment in the appropriate forum re your claim that "9/11 WAS, in fact, a conspiracy, by all accounts"? I dare say "all" is rather too sweeping, at a minimum. Not that I can't appreciate an editor taking up a view with "passion!--Brian Dell (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HectorMoffet, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination. However I'm asking you to revisit the page and do a more thorough review. Editors usually don't intervene in an article undergoing review by another editor thus if I wait for someone else to get involved this nomination may get nowhere. My concerns are: 1) Please begin your review with one of these symbols so that the promoter can see right away what your decision is - \ \ \ \ \ . 2) You commented on the length of the article and that it's interesting. Please comment on the use of inline citation throughout the article / is the hook found in the body of the article? / is the hook inline referenced? / is the article neutral? / do you spot any instances of copyvio or close paraphrasing in the article? / etc.. I appreciate the brief review you've done thus far and would really appreciate your finishing up the review so that the hook is either accepted/rejected/improved. Thanks much. EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a problem with this; could you please review and see if you A. agree there's an error, and B. if you do agree, if you find the edit sufficient to fix it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, where did you get this scan? It's really well done. (You should probably update the source link on the file page, BTW). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally lucked out-- a friend of a friend knew someone who is a collector of launch patches. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Nrol-39.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Template talk:DraftChecker#Redirects that you maybe interested in. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK reviews are invalid; they must cover certain topics with a bit more detail than just a checkmark, namely length, neutrality, sourcing, and copyright issues. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hector,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Nrol-39.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 21, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-02-21. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผ���้ง (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USA Freedom Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Cole (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) 08:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DES ^(talk) 15:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) A few questions and minor issues. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in addition to being the DYK nominator, you are the original drafter and major editor to date of Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act. I note that many of the citaitons in this article are to bare URLs. It would be better practice, as discussed in WP:CITE to provide such metadata (the term is perhaps ironic in this particular case) as author, date, and source where this is available. This can be done using the cite templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite book}}, or it can be done manually, or via any of various other methods. I like the cite tempaltes myself, and I also like list-defined references, but any method may be used. I could have placed a twinkle maintenance tag, but I didn't want to hold up the DYK. Can you look into adding metadata to the cited references? DES ^(talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mass surveillance in East Germany at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Green Giant (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution/archive1.

There is at least one instance I came across of close-paraphrasing.

I know you only recently came by the article so you didn't cause the problem, but if there is one instance, there could be others, as well.

Just a friendly heads up, but unfortunately this means the article should be extensively reviewed, with this issue in mind.

— Cirt (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with this. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word on WT:DYK is that we are not going to treat 11 February as a special occasion on the topic of mass survaillance. Your hook is currently scheduled to run on 6 February. Past my bedtime -- consult at WT:DYK if you want a change made. --Orlady (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]