Hello, MorganDWright, 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 don't take this the wrong way, because photographic additions are invaluable. But the cloud make things a bit harder to see, do you think we should keep one of the older ones with clear skies above it, since the article has previously had two on there for a while and it worked just fine, or did you remove them both to reduce clutter. Just wanted to ask about your thougts because I noticed you were editing, thanks. 𝒬𝔔22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see them better now, I made it bigger. I am the one who took both the 2018 panorama and the recent update. I think 2 pics is too much clutter, that's why I made the new panorama. It was a bit too cloudy, would have preferred mild overcast, but it was 1 PM so the sun was high in the sky, light overcast give the high noon sun diffuse lighting, compared to clear skies which give reflection off the river, but this was much too cloudy I agree. I see all the buildings clearly but maybe I'll go back out and redo it on a better day. I live 10 miles from Weehawken so it's easy. MorganDWright (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, as I rarely have time to edit, it looks great, I appreciate the work you put into this, speaking of which... 𝒬𝔔23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quasi-solid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grease (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.)
A few days back I stumbled across a wikiproject you might find interesting. It's not the most active place, but who knows if we keep running into people with a similar interest maybe we can get a good-size collaboration back together again even if no one individual is particularly active. The formal invite is below.
Submitted for your consideration
You have been invited to join WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!
Hello, I'm Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is about historical rankings, not point-in-time polling or opinion pieces. Please discuss on the talk page before attempting this again.Peaceray (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, but it is hereby rejected. First, there is nothing remotely neutral about Wikipedia, which is widely known to have an extremely leftist bias and bans all neutral and right-winged editors. As an example of the bias, your removal of Obama from the list of 10 worst presidents but not Trump. Second, I'm being neutral and removing Trump, for the same reason. MorganDWright (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay by me. I really think that it is too soon to get an accurate historical or academic perspective. Time will tell. Thank you for bringing the tally of the "worst ten" back to ten. Peaceray (talk) 04:51, 20 December 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
The source is the game itself as broadcast on television, obviously. But I don't want to fight, you have been called out for "ownership" of the Jeopardy pages and will delete anything that anybody other than yourself adds. You've already reverted twice so if I add it again you cannot changed it due to the 3 revert rule, but I don't want to bother. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have no energy anymore to fight with "owners" of articles. I'll just take it to an administrator who will decide. MorganDWright (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, look at the revision history. You added unsourced content that violates WP:V and also does not meet MOS:NAME nor MOS:NUMERAL. Those guidelines are helpful for new editors to understand what content is appropriate. Have a great day. AldezD (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I told you the source, and it's a published (footage on the actual TV show) reference and been aired numerous times. New editors? Editing Wikipedia since 2006, one of the original editors. Been sick of editors like you who bulldog topics for 15 years. Bulldoggers typically don't add cite tags or look things up themselves to see if they're true, they just immediately revert because they didn't write it themselves (they own the article), because they want credit for the whole article, and don't want others to add to it. They are not cooperative editors, they are bullies. Not interested, don't care. Somebody else will eventually remove you from Wikipedia. Don't put anything more on my talk page.MorganDWright (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
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 articles about 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.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Brandon, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matchesDonald Albury22:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Hello, MorganDWright. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fort Miller, New York, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Vandalism? Reverting from political left-wing extremism to political neutrality as envisioned by Jimmy Wales? Guess again. The term "conspiracy theory" is assigning your bias to the theory. The term "misinformation" is assigning your bias to the information. None of this is politically neutral.MorganDWright (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have been here long enough to know that NPOV has nothing to do with political neutrality or the normal sense of "neutral". We document all the non-neutral things that RS say, and we don't allow our personal POV to affect our editing. We document even what we think is not true. If some wrong information is disinformation, and RS say so, then we write "disinformation", "lie", "conspiracy theory", or whatever is the appropriate term for the situation. Neutering what RS say is a gross violation of NPOV. So don't allow your political POV to affect your editing. It is you who must stay neutral, not the content.
As far as sources go, we do not expect them to have an NPOV. That makes for boring and rather uninformative content. We document far more than basic facts here. We also document biased opinions and analyses.
NPOV only applies to the editing of Wikipedia's editors. They must edit in a neutral manner, and the results do not have to be neutral. (NPOV is clear that neither sources nor our content has to be neutral.) Content here must reflect the often-biased POV of the sources. We must not censor or neuter it. FYI, I've been here since 2003 and helped form the NPOV policy, so I know a bit about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
I get it, and I thank you. Bias in the RS, but not in the interpretation of the RS. Sounds like a good policy. By the way I've been here since 2006 under the user name Morgan Wright. Unlike everybody here, I use my real name, like the authors of Encyclopedia Britannica do. I was blocked in 2008 for getting into an edit war with Viriditas over the definition of a hippie, an article which he owned at the time. If I remember, he said they had to wear bell bottoms and I said they had to use patchouli oil. He owned the article and was the world's expert on the definition of a hippie so I got banned. ha ha. But I've learned my lesson and am not going to get into edit wars with people who know everything, certainly will stay away from politics, and away from people who know what hippies were. (I was a hippie from around 1970 to '74 and grew up). Take it easy, man. Here is the link on me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippie&action=history&offset=20080204175430%7C189063436&limit=500MorganDWright (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I only had this info on you: "791 edits since 2019-01-10". Another username explains much more experience here. I suspect we are close in age. I'm now 72. I remember wearing bell bottoms, burning incense, buying pot by the kilo, and growing my own. I was even gifted a bag of wild clothing formerly owned by a member of Three Dog Night by his sister-in-law (wife's sister). (I was never certain, but I suspect it was Michael Allsup.) It was super colorful, thin, and very tight-fitting. I was really noticeable in the street picture. Otherwise, carry on and have a good day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Three Dog Night in 1972 at Concert 10, an article I created in 2007. You can see Viriditas immediately added to and attacked the article, even though he originally said the concert never happened. He stalked me everywhere I went on Wikipedia. Anyway, 3 Dog Night were the last band to play, and everybody left while they were playing. The audience went to see a Woodstock type concert, not to watch an AM radio top-40 band.MorganDWright (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Hi, it is becoming clear by your editing pattern that you are engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing of the subject article, seemingly to push a point of view. I as a fellow editor have given you plenty of space to back up your various hypotheses/claims with reliable sources, but so far, unfortunately, you have not done this. Efforts have been ongoing by myself and another editor to bring better clarity to the involved text, and I believe it is today more clear while continuing to reflect the source. Continued tendentious editing with unsourced "what about this?" edits will lead to me having to open a case for administrators to consider. Of course, I would prefer not to do this. If you have any concerns about this or any article, of course you are welcome to bring to a discussion a reliable source that countervails what is presented. What is not welcome in this or any article is removing text you disagree with or don't like. Please understand we are here to build an encyclopedia based on sourcing, not our personal opinions. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to this article are verging on violating the 3RR which is a form of "WP:WAR". The sentence in question, which I corrected, contained two statements separated by a comma, both of which only become true when the condition at the end of the second statement is given to both statements. I combined the two statements into one so the condition applies to both parts of the sentence, and now you made it worse by making it into two sentences:
"The Derby and the Oaks are the oldest annually held major sporting events in the US. Among thoroughbred stakes races, they are the oldest that have been held on the same track since the beginning"
As it's written, the first sentence is read as being independent of the condition (being held every year on the same track since the beginning) applying to it. The way it's written is simply wrong. It's not a matter of opinion or personal bias, it's factually incorrect. The reference given is simply "The Encyclopedia of Louisville" without scan of the printed text, and unless I take a drive to Louisville and find this publication, it's impossible to cross reference it, but it doesn't matter because I told you of 4 other major sporting events that are older but without that above mentioned condition. Facts are facts. The Kentucky Derby is NOT the oldest annually held major sporting event, it is the oldest annually held major sporting event held at the same location every year since the beginning. The way you wrote it is simply false information, and you are the one being WP:TENDITIOUS. MorganDWright (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a reply to this on Talk:Kentucky Derby. But also, please be aware that falsely charging another editor with WP:3RR or anything else doesn't help your position. This isn't the first case where you have engaged in problematic editing (see above). Also, I will restate we don't claim facts per our personal opinion in the Wikipedia - facts must be backed up by reliable sources, which you don't seem interested in bringing to a discussion. What is stated in the subject article complies with Wikipedia standards. It is not "simply wrong". Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falsely charged with 3RR? I said you were on the verge of 3RR after 2 reverts. One more revert and I will take it to arbitration. I don't seem interested in providing sources? I provided this long ago: [1] Your statement is different from what's in the reference. Oldest annually held event doesn't mean oldest continuously held event. The other 4 events I gave are older and held annually but missed a year or two. But they are older, and they are annually held. MorganDWright (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:3RR works. There is a time period involved. Also, you are clearly engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the subject article, continuously failing to bring an alternative source and also falsely accusing my work as a misinterpretation of the source. I will be fine with an arbitrative process if we need to go there. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Annually means held each year. Saratoga Race Course opened in 1863 and holds races every August. That makes it annual. 1863 makes it older. The fact that it missed 2 years during WWII brings continuity into question, not whether it's annual, or older. (It missed 4 years: two during WWII when the races moved to Belmont for the duration, and two other years due to gambling laws, which means very little and doesn't give The Kentucky Derby the title of oldest annual, just oldest continuous.)MorganDWright (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context is important here. The context is "annually since the beginning (1875)". "Annually since the beginning" and "continuously since the beginning" are effectively the same thing, but for the greatest clarity, "annually since the beginning" is clearer for the general reader. 'Continuously' can be taken with more than one meaning. We wouldn't have a Wikipedia if editors didn't use common-sense interpreting of source texts. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk21:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't say "annually since the beginning" which is correct, it says " oldest annually held major sporting event in the US," which is wrong. But since you like "annually since the beginning," then you are agreeing that you won't revert a 4th time when I make it say that?MorganDWright (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth
I don't think there's consensus to have a section about his bat size. Can I suggest that you consider adding a quote box with Ruth talking about the subject? That might accomplish what you are seeking to do. Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His bat size is very controversial, because it may have been the biggest bat ever used. Of course it should be there. If you want to do it as a quote section, be my guest.MorganDWright (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.
