Hello, Phmoreno! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_growth#Theories_of_economic_growth Please "undo" your revert and restore my entry. Not a fact ... just a theory published by the Boeing Aircraft Corp. What is the strength, R2, t-values, etc. ? ... regarding:

In North America, strong increases in productivity and continuing population growth drive GDP growth. The GDP growth rate is forecast at 2.9 percent annually over the next 20 years. ^[1]

Thanks, James Copeland, P.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copeland.James.H (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you're working on economics articles. You should come hang out at the Economics Wikiproject. Feel free to message me if you have any questions. LK (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me on your 1.15 am edit. Whats the link to Hydraulic and Pneumatic?--ClemRutter (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now. Nice piece of work.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the work in progress- and see a little local difficulty. As far as I can ascertain in a GB context, the word electrification is limited to the phrase 'Electrification of the railways' and in the 1950 'Electrification' was a big issue, with the Electrification of the West Coast Main Line#Modernisation by British Rail. It affected the schools, where there were assemblies on how dangerous it would be to try and touch one of the cables. Bridges had to be raised to allow for gauge clearance.

I have done a quick google on History electricity Manchester and found this Wolverhampton article which is fascinating to read Electricity in the Midlands -nowhere is the process providing electricity referred to as 'electrification'! Doesn't prove anything but it is worth noting that the North Am usage seems broader, and that should be noted with possibly a ((See also)) template. I won't touch the text while you are working on it. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Five dollar Banknote of Citizens Bank of Louisiana.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) 04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Useful work growth theory 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/Useful work growth theory 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 template from the top of the article. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the IMF "adopted [Ayers & Warr's] methodology" in the WEO 2012, I assume you are referring to WEO Scenario 3, in which the contribution of oil to output is considerably increased compared to their benchmark scenario. I wouldn't describe this as "adopted their methodology"; it is only an alternative scenario considered next to the main scenario. In relation to the question whether we have sufficient sourcing for the article Ayres-Warr model, this source qualifies as independent. I'm less certain whether it qualifies as reliable, but let's assume the IMF staff who worked on these scenarios are experts in the field. Then, still, I don't see significant coverage. The actual reference to the Ayres–Warr model does not go further than stating that they (and others!) "have argued that [the IMF benchmark scenario model] understates the importance of energy, including oil, for economic activity" and "have found output contributions of energy that range from 30 percent to more than 60 percent". The coverage in independent reliable sources should be such that one should be able to base the article on the content of that coverage; I don't see that here.  --Lambiam 01:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives I'll address this issue. No point at this time.Phmoreno (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lambiam, there is a discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Useful_work_growth_theory see summary of scope - if you are satisfied with coverage, you might vote ( if not too ... ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up this section, I think it looks very good now. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phmoreno. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This footnote you added on 21 January 2013 contains an imcomplete citation of "Landes 1969". Could you please complete it? --bender235 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second Industrial Revolution 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:

• including alloys and [[Chemical industry|chemicals]], and communication technologies such as the [[telegraph], telephone and [[radio]]. While the first industrial revolution was centered on iron,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Industrial Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milling (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) 09:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Agricultural Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McAdam (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) 09:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Economic growth, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. I don't think that user Bobrayner, who has 47,000 edits, will be discouraged, but labeling edits as vandalism in edit summaries does not encourage discussion or collaboration. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is really censorship by a person with a bias against this theme. Actually that is worse than vandalism.Phmoreno (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So work out an acceptable version on the talk page (as you are). Labeling edits as vandalism or bias or censorship will not help you win the argument or create consensus. If you feel this is a severe problem, go to the NPOV noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crucible steel 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:

• |isbn= 978-0-8018-6502-2 | postscript = <Source discusses general problems with the learning process of the new steel making, but does not

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Martin Easterly may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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><ref>[http://collections.mohistory.org/resource/142340.html St. Charles Hotel}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notification templates to editor talk pages say "there is currently...." I suggest you start the discussion first, and then post your notices to the involved editors. Also, on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (which deals with article content) and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (which deals with active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule), be sure to follow the guidelines on the Noticeboards about how to use them. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you participate in some of the board discussions just for a bit of practice. Consider the comments, reply as you feel best, and then see what comes about. You'll get a better feel for how the boards work. You might also see why they are sometimes called "Drama Boards". (See: Wikipedia:Drama for more.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please take a step back and be careful not to exceed 3 reverts. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to see that you're continuing to edit that article prior to keeping your promise to read the Barro book. Nothing good is going to come of this. It's better to take an extra week or two and get it right than to continue the same contentious changes which remain unresolved on the article and talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clermont. 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) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to quibble with at least one of your recent changes; maybe it hangs on the meaning of "good quality iron", but it seems rather misleading to imply that hot blast enabled the use of coke as a fuel when Darby was smelting with coke a full century before Neilson developed the hot blast. Choess (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Have you ever read Gordon's "American Iron"? Fascinating book on the changes in American ironmaking practice pre-20th century and the frankly rather unscientific way in which the technology developed. Choess (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamping. 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) 09:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several inappropriate ((Disputed tag|talk=Crucible steel#Not in agreement with other sources)) tags that you have added to Crucible steel. Information regarding the dispute should added to the talk page for the article. I've copied your text to there, but it does not adequately describe the problem, so you may want to expand on your concerns at talk:Crucible steel#Inappropriate ((disputed tag)) tags removed, discussion of ((disputed-section)) tags ("Not in agreement with other sources"). Rwessel (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Agricultural Revolution 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:

• and imposing a hefty export tax to enrich their treasury. Massive deposits of sea bird [[guano]] (11–16% N, 8–12% [[phosphate]], and 2–3% [[potash]], were found and started to be imported after

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cogeneration#Too_much_emphasis_on_trigeneration pls fix it, the best option is to separate the articles. Mion (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Industrial Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added the |postscript= parameter incorrectly to cite web in the article. Per ((cite web)), postscript: Controls the closing punctuation for a citation; defaults to a period (.); for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none – leaving |postscript= empty is the same as omitting it, but is ambiguous.

Also, you did the quotation marks. Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, use only typewriter, ie "straight" marks. Bgwhite (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Industrial Revolution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Industrial Revolution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Industrial Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Industrial Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your January post on the lede and definition of technology, and would like to start suggesting some major revisions. But I'm intimidated by the wide use of this definition--it starts many of the articles in the Outline of Technology. I would propose an opening paragraph such as this--“Technology” comes from a Greek word often translated as “technique,” referring to individual knowledge and skill in some field. Today the word more often refers to one or more bodies of knowledge and skills possessed by a community. A century ago, it was called a “state of the industrial arts.” Is this talk page the place to do that? Or is there some more appropriate place to open that discussion? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At [1], you asked for recommendations from other editors to improve the article Technology, in part because "At least Productivity improving technologies (historical) discusses modern technology and shows how it affects our everyday lives" [2]. I responded to your request for a plan by suggesting that you "remove the (in my view, very misguided) mash-up of economic history and productivity from your creation at Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) and use the remaining bits that deal only with modern technology itself to create a new Modern technology article that deals solely with modern technology." [3], and you called that plan "constructive" [4] and wrote "Your suggestion is good." [5]. However, instead of beginning to implement that plan, it seems like you've renamed Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical) as Productivity (economic history) [6]. Now, instead of having an article here that "discusses modern technology and shows how it affects our everyday lives" without a single coherent topic in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY, you seem to be doing the same thing without even having the word technology in the essay's title. None of this matters to me very much, but I am curious about it. At the moment, I'm just wondering what became of our previous plan. Did you change your mind? Eventually (probably soon), either me or someone else will bring your essay, regardless of its title, (and perhaps the others spun off from Productivity#Productivity_articles_with_a_special_focus) to WP:AfD for deletion. I just don't know if I'll be doing you, and more importantly, the encyclopedia, a favor by doing it sooner or later. Please let me know your thoughts about this. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Jazz: This is a matter of priorities because I will be unavailable for the next three weeks. The first priority is to address comments regarding the Productivity article, which I am trying to do. That requires the least amount of time and can get accomplished sooner. And time is needed for more time for comments at Talk:Technology. I have not decided to write a modern technology article or to reorganize any other articles at this time. That depends on the outcome of Porductivity.Phmoreno (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC

You and I apparently produce substandard content, according to a brilliant and collegial editor. I'm thinking of starting a club. Perhaps with intense reeducation and proper guidance we can meet that noble editor's unusual standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Famine. 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) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reapers. 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) 10:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I could have explained that better. I meant that having an external link "see this diagram" in the middle of a paragraph is useless to anyone reading the article offline, or in a printed paper form (cf. WP:CLICKHERE). It makes more sense as a reference, but perhaps a redrawn version of it could be added to the article, if it's particularly useful? Wikipedia:Graphics Lab might be able to help. --McGeddon (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other place for a link like this would be the "External links" section, per WP:ELPOINTS. They should not be used in the body of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Industrial Revolution article for which you are a significant contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding a number of issues, including layout, image use, and inline citations, and that length, prose, and use of external links also need discussing. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of progress I will close the GAN and delist the article in two days unless someone objects. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it open longer. I plan to address most of these issues but I have real world obligations outside Wikipedia. De-listing as GA will require some other reviewer to go through the whole process again.Phmoreno (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no progress on the article, so I have delisted. When the issues have been addressed the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of railway history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coke. 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) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you just reached 10,000 edits since 2007. CONGRATS and keep it up. Rjensen (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Economic history of the United States page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Industrial Revolution page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you've edited the steam engine article. I was wondering if you could tell me what the following steam engine may have been used for: photo link]. ST1849 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Calidum ¤ 04:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you are self-censoring? I thought that was an interesting point.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phmoreno. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the title in the accompanying plot "File:Cost of chicken in time worked.jpg", "by" should be "buy": "By" is preposition meaning "near" or "next to". This context suggests you want "buy", which means "purchase": "Hours of work to by a 3 pound chicken" may have some funny poetic meaning that escapes me, but I believe you meant, "Hours of work to buy a 3 pound chicken".

Beyond this, someplace I read that images submitted to Wikimedia Commons should generally avoid text to make it easier for others to use the image in articles of different languages. In certain contexts like bar charts or system diagrams, it may be best to ignore this rule, because it may decrease the readability too much to label individual bars or diagram features with numbers that are then defined in the description. If you look at my uploads, you'll see that I've done it both ways.

For your amusement, I just added a Spanish translation to the "Summary" for "File:Cost of chicken in time worked.jpg". This allows you to see how that works, if you have time and interest for that.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikimedia projects DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I tried to click on that link it didn't work, if there was no link intended why was the link there in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guardian101: There is no link, unless you are talking about the reference, where using reference type Harvnb the link is optional. Regardless, just because you can't find a link does not permit you to remove the material.Phmoreno (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you need a link or evidence to support information that you're adding to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guardian101: Only a citation is required. Most references are not available online. This particular citation, Bjork 1999, is from a book.Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phmoreno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Industrial Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Famine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fake edit warring warning. I have cited five sources, some primary and some secondary. As I understand Wikipedia policy, all of these are RS. Every time I cite a new source it gets reverted. I have since replaced those five with a sixth.Phmoreno (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are WP:RS. The newest source you added was a self-published Forbes op-ed. You used that source for text that accuses a living person of wrongdoing and/or crimes; it's a WP:BLP violation to have such text without proper RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed in her own emails. Many sources.Phmoreno (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remind you of the discretionary sanctions alert above. Please strive to keep your commentary neutral and assume good faith. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phmoreno -- you are bludgeoning these pages with POV theories and original research that's not backed by reliable source references. Your personal views don't belong on article talk pages. It looks as if you've been told this over and over. I hope you'll stop doing this. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, you and I have different interpretations of reliable sources and I believe you are misinterpreting Wikipedia policy.Phmoreno (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have told you the same thing -- it's not about "interpretation" of policy, and I've seen you push your Original Research on economics articles as well. It's fine to have lots of personal theories and interpretations, but that's not how Wikipedia editors work. That would be more suitable for your personal blog, which might attract worldwide attention and might be a valuable resource for mankind. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this and don't ever do that again. I'm hoping it was just an accident. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Talk to solicit editors to work on another unrelated article.Phmoreno (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been notified of the discretionary sanctions around US politics. You have been notified recently about personalising disputes on articles in this topic area, following disputes around your use of sources. Now, at Alfa Bank, you are edit-warring to introduce right wing talking points sourced from right-wing entertainment stations. This is not acceptable. You need to understand that if an edit in this topic area is rejected, you have to take it to talk, and the onus is on you to defend your edit, not on others to knock it down. Please be aware that continued edit warring and use of bad sources can lead to your being banned from this topic area. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Alfa-Bank article is not under discretionary sanctions. My edit made no political statement whatsoever. Alfa-Bank's cyber security consultant claimed fraud was involved and it is only fair that Alfa-Bank's side of the story be told in the article. Phmoreno (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:1RR and consensus required restrictions on the page Trump–Russia dossier, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You are involved in a dispute which is being discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? You have been informed/warned more than once that The Daily Caller is not a RS. Period. Don't use it as a source here. Don't use it at all. Only imbibe RS.

Your repeated actions leave serious doubts about your competency to edit political subjects, and a topic ban is needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who put you in charge of sources?Phmoreno (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? No, obviously not. Just sarcasm. Okay.

Start by reading the article about the website. Then take a look at who runs it, Tucker Carlson. That alone should tell you it can't be a RS. If that's not enough, I'm not sure I can help you, but the many problems it has, such as Climate change denial. Anyone who denies it is not trustworthy. The list of controversies is long, and they aren't just mistakes, but happen because it's not a RS. They can't be trusted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr's handwritten notes that were turned over by the Inspector General have been covered by numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and Fox News. The WaPo story tells how the Democrats, who boycotted the Ohr testimony, didn't want the documents passed out in connection with Ohr's testimony made public. News outlets varied in which parts of the handwritten notes they covered. The Hill verified part of the Alfa Bank statement, but only called it a Russian Bank. Back to the point of sources- you are not in charge of them, and if you persist with reverting my or anyone else's edits with your phony RS claims I will have you banned just like I had another editor banned.Phmoreno (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this have to do with the false "China hacked Clinton's server" story, where you tried to use The Daily Caller as a source? This is just one more of the false and fake stories DC has published. It's not a RS.

I'll revert any junk anyone posts. If you dispute it on the talk page, I'll be happy to discuss. That's the way we roll here. Solutions happen there, and I'll be happy to work with you.

BTW, I'd welcome any attempt on your part to get me in trouble. Your track record speaks for itself. I can already hear that whistling boomerang coming back at you. If you want to brag about getting disruptive editors banned, I helped get a Nobel Prize winner blocked. Big deal. Position doesn't protect anyone here. People who use bad sources, push OR, etc. get blocked, topic banned, or indeffed.

If you stop using unreliable sources, and stop pushing Trump's conspiracy theories, you'll be fine, but if you refuse to learn, then you're treading a path fraught with peril. More and more admin eyes are following you. If you're in doubt, feel free to ask me and I'll give my opinion. I've been here since 2003 and learned the hard way. Things have changed a lot since them, but the basic criteria for source reliability are the same. Sources that frequently get it wrong are not RS. Here's a great article based on data analysis.

FYI, here's another instance of Trump pushing a conspiracy theory. He's been doing this sort of thing for decades, especially with his own fake stories designed to make himself look good and others look bad. He's been the originator of fake news many times. The fake news produced to help him during the election is being investigated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-read and understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I see no prohibition of of the sources you called not reliable in your reverts. Also note that there is no prohibition of citing primary sources (transcripts, interviews) as long as it does not constitute OR. There are plenty of primary sources that can confirm news reports. Phmoreno (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend you remove your statement here that could be construed as a legal threat. Something that could easily get you banned on sight. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are against policy and can lead to bans, withdraw it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a legal threat. I only said I would inform someone about what was said about them. That's quite a different matter.Phmoreno (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you did not intend it to be a legal threat. This is more of an abundance of caution situation, 3 editors now have suggested that it might be an issue and the BLP vio has already been removed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng and Slatersteven:I am glad that was removed. I retracted my statement. It's disturbing enough to see the trend of attacks on sources, but calling a reputable journalist a liar crosses the line.Phmoreno (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that your comment was indeed an obvious legal threat (would you contact a legal department for funsies?), and that the response to a BLP violation isn't to indirectly threaten a defamation lawsuit/other legal action against the editor making the comment untill the BLP violation is removed, per WP:NLT Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal_threat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably noticed, the block was reversed. However, you shouldn't announce to other editors that you intend to take legal action over anything, it can send a chilling effect to the discussion and completely derail things from getting back on track. I know all things Trump are a minefield of explosive opinions, so it really is important to keep your cool if you run into a dispute over them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phmoreno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Closing instructions. That section was closed by an uninvolved administrator and is not to be altered. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism. That was intended to be a serious edit and contained two author name references. From my edit:

"See the primary sources such as transcripts plus recent books by Bongino, Garrett and others."

The discussion was hatted but I do not recall any indication that it was closed. It may have been in the process of being closed, but it was not in blue background with the standard closed notice. If it was closed then my apologies for the error. Phmoreno (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed 57 minutes before you posted your comment. Unless it took you almost an hour to write your two sentence comment, there was no way you wouldn't have seen that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may have because I was working on the edit between doing something in another room.Phmoreno (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or it may have been because you ignored the fact that it was closed and simply wanted to insert your comment, whether or not the discussion had concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Why would I comment on a closed discussion?Phmoreno (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you won't mind if I delete it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you delete it. But I wonder why you are so concerned about a comment in a closed discussion?Phmoreno (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I'll delete it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[8] You're suppose to strike your false statements, NOT change them to make it appear as if someone was responding to something other than what you actually wrote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and am not familiar with the protocol regarding this issue. I was only involved in this matter because another editor pointed out an attack on me. You then joined in on the attack. I was only defending myself. However, I did correct the record.Phmoreno (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Doug Weller talk 12:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Phmoreno (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was a long time editor and at once in the top 1000 for edits. I have been blocked for posing a "threat" to Wikipedia. The "threat" consists of my plans to illustrate tactics used by certain editors to bias political articles, using their own statements on a Talk page. The complaints by other editors in these articles Talk pages are numerous. I am not the threat, the biased editors who left incriminating paper trails are the threat, that is, unless "threat" actually means not going along with the bias.

Decline reason:

I agree with the reason for the block. Sandstein 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Phmoreno/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Phmoreno/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Phmoreno/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an "attack" page. The sandbox text was a test edit for my defense on the administrators noticeboard, where I copied and pasted what I wrote in sandbox. I was defending myself from an attack. I was blocked before I could remove it.Phmoreno (talk)

The file File:Seed yield.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]