This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Mitchellhobbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Mitchellhobbs, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to BJ's Restaurants have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Southwire, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jacenty359 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note -- I've move the article to Draft:Southwire to give you more, but not unlimited, time to get this to where it needs to be to avoid deletion. Take a few minutes to read WP:FIRST to see what you'll need to add to the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Mitchellhobbs. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page. Message added 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Opinions reported by reliable sources are reflected in Wikipedia. It is a fact that these are some people's opinions and reliable sources reported them. If you have an issue with how this is presented in the article please discuss on the talk page rather than blanking. Thanks. --Escape Orbit(Talk) 16:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
I don't see where someone else's opinion about a person, has to do with someone's biography in WikiMitchellhobbs (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Daniel Mattes: Possible collective vandalism
Hi, Mitchellhobbs, just wanted to give you some heads up. There has been some strange activities on the Daniel Mattes page you edited. My assumption is someone is actively trying to remove links between the business man and the AI fund lawsuit. I did warn them, as I feel a living person bio should keep a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlschultz108 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned cites
Hi there. It's not a good idea to remove orphaned cites like you've been doing. There's a bot that comes around now and then and finds the old cite in the article history and pastes it in. EEng 01:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Eng whats an orphaned cite is it in the ref? if it is no problem ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
never mind, I got It ~ sorry Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I should add that, at this point because of the complicated history of deletion and reinsertion, the bot might not be able to fix these, but it's still better to leave them with the broken ref as a clue to some other editor that wants to fix manually. EEng 03:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
GPS Hospitality, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathan Chapman (soldier), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierce County. 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.)
Hi Mitchellhobbs. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Peter Mayhew. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See (RSP entry)). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Ronz, let me do some more research on famousbirthdays.com, at the present I am neither for or against famousbirthdays.com, it will be a few days, in the mean time if you feel that the ref for Peter Mayhew needs a more reliable source, do as you please. Thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, sorry it took so long to get back to you but I do see in (RSP entry) is black listed ~ I did not click on your 'See RSP entry' ~ . Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your revert, although secondary sources are more reliable for opinion-based facts, however the airline has the say of what routes it will operate, not a random website or newspaper, would you find a route on elsewhere but not the official site. Is that not reliable? I look forward to your reply.WikiAviator (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There were a series of problematic edits just before yours, and the easiest thing was to just revert. The link to list of sauces had previously been moved to the See also section, not removed, so I didn't restore it to the place you'd inserted. --valereee (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: WWV (no problem)
No problem with the WWV revert, obviously an honest mistake. It also highlights some flaws in parts of Wikipedia, in that some actions should include an "are you sure" second step to avoid mistakes like this. I've been annoyed a couple of times when my edits were immediately accepted when I accidentally pressed the enter key, when good design should have a second step where it displays what you've chosen to do and asks you to to verify that this is what you actually want, instead of the "hair-triggered" immediate change.--Thomas H. White (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Mitchellhobbs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Whoops! Got your account screwed up :) I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. 15:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caker18 (talk • contribs)
What exactly is promotional? It's newsworthy, clearly labeled as "planned", and I'm looking for an independent source. However, it's still rather early in that time zone. But if you feel like deleting this, it's not the hill I want to die on. Suit yourself. --McDoobAU93 13:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
McDoob ~ thanks for your answer I left a link on your talk page ~ cheers Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Your thanks are appreciated. However, what exactly was promotional about the prose? All I did was change the source, nothing more. That would indicate the prose was perfectly acceptable, hence my frustration here. There comes a time when we can ignore the rules or at least understand context in how something is added. I understand that theme parks love to blow their own horn, and I do indeed prefer independent sources to WP:PRIMARY ones. That said, it is possible to use a PRIMARY source if the information is kept factual. If you would please illustrate exactly what in the prose was "promotional", I'd love to hear it so I could learn for future use. Thanks in advance. --McDoobAU93 13:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
McDoob If you would have read more than just the headlines (on the link I sent you) "it has agreed to buy, for $261 million" the primary that you used the first time said planned ~ from a primary source when an american company states they 'plan' it is a forward looking statement ~ ~ the only source you provided came from the company itself. pointing out that they plan to buy Schlitterbahn. pro·mo·tion·al /prəˈmōSH(ə)n(ə)l/ ~ adjective relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness. ~ Buy the way ~ you did not need to put the same source twice in the same sentence ~ and the word planned should be changed to agreed ~ that takes some of the promotion out ~ regards Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see how it is now. NOW you have a problem with the prose. Since apparently this is your article, I'll leave you to it. Enjoy. --McDoobAU93 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
McDoob This is not my article it belongs to Wiki ~ I see that you have done many other theme parks ~ I would have expected more from a person so experienced as you ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hence you changing it after you saw it was exactly the same as what you reverted, but with a different source. No more or less forward-looking, and yet just as factual. Again, I get it. You wanted it your way. As they say at Burger King, have it your way. --McDoobAU93 14:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
McDoob no use in arguing with you ~ please have a great day and don't forget to be nice to the new editors and Thank often ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not arguing with you. Again, I'm agreeing with you. You wanted it your way, and you got it. If you don't want me to respond, don't ping me. :) --McDoobAU93 14:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Schlitterbahn name rights
Sorry about the way I reacted. I actually found a news source where Winter Prosapio the corporate comunications director for Schlitterbahn specifically states that the deal did include the name rights via the New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
"Prosapio said discussions about the sale of the parks have been ongoing for a few months now, and the deal does include the Schlitterbahn name."DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The source you quoted has incorrect information about the merger total amount. Why I have removed it and added the source that is sourcing correct amount to be paid.
The wall street journal is a more respected source than a press release from Eldorado ~ I suggest you revert your revert ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I see you did not undo my edit ~ I assumed that when you edited on my talk page you had already reverted my edit ~ sorry for the false accusation ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The wall street journal is a secondary source ~ the Press release from Eldorado is a primary souce ~ Eldorado can say whatever they please on their press release whether it is true or ~ unchecked by an editor ~ the wall street journal however has a chief editor and has gained the trust of their readers ~ I admit there is a large difference between the two amounts ~ both the wall street journal and CNBC reports 8.5 billion ~ not over 17 billion as stated on Eldorado's press release ~mitch~ (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chick-fil-A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFOX.
Thanks for your response. What strikes me about the fire, and what makes the connection to Kodai-ji in Nara seem so relevant, is that we are talking about very fragile, highly (even extremely) flammable, deeply historic buildings whose caretakers face common fears about what to do in worst-case scenarios like the Notre-Dame fire. So it is not the mere fact of fund-raising (however modest the funds are) that makes the Kodai-ji case stand out, but the common concern because of the type of building (and its preciousness vis-a-vis religious culture) and the awareness that the scale of damage would be too much for the governments of France or in this case Japan to handle alone. CallMeBarcode (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Today show
The "former" is Kathie Lee and Hoda. The "current" is Hoda and Jenna. JTRH (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I updated the wrong section heading. Thanks for the correction. JTRH (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@JTRH: No problem ~ WP:LOL by the way nice to meet you ~mitch~ (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Mitchellhobbs/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello and thanks Atsme for the introduction. Ping me if I can assist. Mostly I share medical information with WP:WikiProject Medicine. I also participate in wiki organization, particularly to assist universities in supporting students to edit wiki. I will be at the Boston conference in November but if I can orient you somehow to the network of activity, then just ask. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Revert on the Pizza Hut Article
Hello Mitch, I am here because of a revert you had made to a recent update I had done to the article for Pizza Hut, adding the correct info about it's classic "1967" logo. After a fair bit of digging through many early commercials, print advertisements, and some of the earliest trademark applications (specifically this one right here), everything I have found seems to point to the logo mentioned being introduced much later than described. With the first trademark application (above), filed in Febuary of 1976, stating that the logo was first used on August 15, 1974. I am not sure where the "1967" date has come from, as I have never found any real evidence of the logo debuting that year, ads I had found from around that time, up until 1974/75, all instead showcase the previous logo and Pizza Pete mascot.--Thesuperwikiman (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Thesuperwikiman:. Nice to meet you ~ this is a quote ~ "The red-roof logo first debuted in 1967, but was deposed in 1999 by a curvier version." from here also this is an edit in the article here ~ the source you provided is a trademark patent and the patent says that the first use "no later than 1974' it does not state that the logo was not used before 1974 ~ once again nice to meet you ~ let me know if I can help you in any way around wiki ~ thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Re: Air Canada
Hey Mitch, I like to let you know that you made a bit of a mistake with the other message you sent me about the article of Air Canada. It's just that I think that the Embraer E190 will be replaced by the Airbus A220-300 in the Air Canada fleet while older Airbus A320 aircraft are replaced by the Boeing 737 MAX 8. I'm not fully sure if got these right when I tried to make an edit on the current Air Canada fleet. I don't want to get blocked/banned from editing. I am trying to make sure my edits and that I add sourced material that is appropriate. Airbus A350-100BOI (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Airbus A350-100BOI (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Airbus A350-100BOI: ~ the reason for the edit I made is ~ it is per the source ~ if you find another RS to back up your edit by all means ~ use it ~ if not ~ go by the source that is there ~ thanks for you reply~ also nice to meet you ~mitch~ (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a quote from the source ~ "Boeing 737 MAX deliveries are scheduled to begin in late 2017 and extend to 2021, while the C Series deliveries are scheduled to start in late 2019 and extend to 2022" ~ I did not see anywhere in that source ~ about the 220s ~ I'm sure there is something out there ~ but you will have to add it along side of the Boeing ~ the source states Boeing ~ and you can't just remove that source to put only the 220's in ~ let me know if I can help ~mitch~ (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Airbus A350-100BOI: ~ I went ahead and make a proper edit w/source for you here ~ please make note of what was added and how ~ once again nice meeting you ~ let me know if you need help on anything else ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Citations on Bascobert appointment at Gannett
We apparently have inverse views on what constitutes a quality source on the CEO appointment at Gannett.
I use the official,specific announcement of the appointment,you use an article (in a Gannett-owned paper,so no more independent) that is primarily about the New Media/GateHouse merger but mentions his appointment in passing.Why?12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! 12.144.5.2 ~ lets start here ~ WP:primary~ secondary sources ~ "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" ~ that should answer your question about using a company's website as a source ~ second ~ even though USA Today is owned by Gannett ~ USA Today is a newspaper and they have "a chief editor and has gained the trust of their readers" ~ along with that ~ they have editors that proof read every single thing before the newspaper is published ~ and being owned by Gannett does not make a real difference when it comes to SPJ Code of Ethics ~ Also you might want to think about creating a named account it will give you more additional privileges ~ by the way nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Spamming
Good morning, Mitch. You posted on my talk page about your new draft article and I replied there. But now I see that you have posted the same question on a dozen or more people's talk pages. That is not good. That's called spamming - flooding the place with the same notice or query or whatever. It is not courteous. As I said at my reply, but now I'll say it a little stronger: your draft has been submitted, so wait your turn for someone to respond to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I did not know that was spamming I only sent to the editors that I have been talking to on theirs and my talk pages ~ I am only asking for the editors that I trust to look at my work and I am not asking for any special favors in a publish ~ sorry I have offended you Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Mitch, Can you please stop vandalizing the El Paso shooting page. You could get banned if you do it again. Jtnav04 (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: ~ Hey MelanieN, I don't know who this editor is ~ and I don't think I am vandalizing El Paso ~ I don't know why the editor choose to put their edit here instead of a new section ~ do you think my edits are vandelism? Thanks MelanieN ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Weird. I posted a note on their talk page. They are a very new user, and clearly they have no idea what vandalism is. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mitchellhobbs, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to BJ's Restaurants have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
