User talk:209.213.71.78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User:MadMax

Honeymoon Gang[edit]

Heya, nice job on Honeymoon Gang! Don't you mean mid 19th century though? --fvw* 18:46, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes I just noticed the typo. -- User:209.213.71.78 2:04, 2005 Jan 28

Capitalization[edit]

Hi, thanks for creating the new organized crime pages but please check out the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters for article casing, especially before creating a large series of articles like the Timeline of Organized Crime. You should only capitalize proper nouns in Wikipedia articles, otherwise you create a lot of work for people to fix up. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 11:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Lexor. I'll certainly correct them immediatly. -- User:209.213.71.78 11:21, Feb 11, 2005 (EST)

Charles Bolles[edit]

Hi. You recently created a page for a Western outlaw, Charles Bolles. Could you please provide a citation, as I couldn't pull up any information on the guy in a Google search. I was about to list it for deletion (I've been checking the recent changes for new ads, spam, vanity, and hoaxes posted, seems like there's one every minute) but I noticed you've made some useful contributions, so I'm sure it's not a hoax. Be sure to check out the Wiki guidelines on verifiability and notability to see if it fits. Thank you.--Dmcdevit 02:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) (PS, we'd love it if you signed up for a username)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. Actually I created that page from a previous disambigious page listing three articles under Black Bart although I am not the original author of the article itself. I can certainly list some sources for you although I can vouch for the article itself refering the stagecoach robber popularly known as Black Bart. Thanks for letting me know and I certainly appreciate the compliments. 209.213.71.78 19:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Ahh..., I see the disambig page. Well, if you have some sources, I would appreciate if you could list them on the article under a heading like this: ==References== . PS, keep it up! --Dmcdevit 19:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know I listed some sources. Thanks again. 209.213.71.78 19:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job!--Dmcdevit 19:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits will be indistinguishable from vandalism and will have to be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Welcome![edit]

I know you're not a new user, but I can't believe you've never been welcomed! So here it is!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and what Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log. We always want everyone to join up so that you have a username which makes communication and identification by others much easier, see Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! --Dmcdevit 19:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Although I didn't think my own contributions were worth getting one I'll certainly look into getting a Username if it helps clear up any confusion between myself and a vandal. 209.213.71.78 19:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • There's certainly no number of edits needed for a username, plus it's really easy. Join the community!--Dmcdevit 19:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Great job recategorising all the gangs into the appropriate category. Might I recommend registering a username? It allows you to have edits attributed to your name, rather than just an IP address, for one thing. :) Talrias | talk 20:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also invited by another user earlier today. I can certainly sign up when I get a chance. 209.213.71.78 20:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So I see! When you've signed up (it takes 5 seconds!), please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks! Talrias | talk 20:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly will. Thanks again. 209.213.71.78 20:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I was coming here to say the same and to point you at the benefits of creating an account, but I see that others beat me to it. A welcome from me, too! — mark ✎ 10:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labor racketeering[edit]

I have been following your work on various sluggers and like the piece you did on the labor slugger wars. Let me know when you get around to writing a piece on labor racketeering--there certainly is a need for it. My interest in the issue is from the other side of the equation, the unions that either hired or were victimized by these guys. -- Italo Svevo 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I certainly appreciate the recent edits. I can be a horrible speller at times. :) I'll definatly start working on a labor racketeering article as soon as I can find some reliable sources. Labor racketeering was definately the major activity of pre-Prohibition organized crime along with extortion. It might make for a good candidate for a collaboration article. 209.213.71.78 18:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies I should have mentioned that 1919 was the date when Jacob Orgen's family disowned him, considering 1919 the date of his "death" hence the 1901 date. The correct date in 1894 although this is the explanation for the "aged 25 years" statement. Again sorry for the misunderstanding. 209.213.71.78 18:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mafia associates"[edit]

Hi, I have my doubts about Category:Mafia associates, partly because it is by definition vague and hard to verify. Certainly many people, including many politicans, have had contacts with mobsters; at what point to they become "associates"? This is not something someone can be convicted of, except perhaps in the court of public opinion. Also, it might libellous in cases where it is suspected but not "proven". In any case, my personal feeling would be simply to state this allegation in the body of the article and not to try to formalize it in in a category. What do you think? -- Viajero 09:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I would say it might be more misleading rather then vague. As opposed to say a Mafia associate "member", a non-Italian member of the Mafia, individuals with known and well documented associations with organized crime to the extent that, while not part of an organized crime organization per se, they do actively work with and ultimately benefit from these activities are, in my opinion, directly involved in organized crime. Countless individuals from union, law enforcement, and government officials have been convicted because of there known ties to organized crime groups which in part have helped prove racketeering charges. You certainly make a valid point about possibly renaming the category as well as definitions for inclusion however I should point out, as all of these individuals actually took part in racketeering (rather then simply taking bribes), I do feel they are a legitimate subcategory of organized crime. 209.213.71.78 20:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of godfathers[edit]

The funny thing is that I don't even remember working on the article! I probably just moved it out of something else. That being said I can't complain about the edits that you or anybody else chooses to make, :-) Eclecticology 22:46, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Lol. Alright then I guess I'll try to reorganize the list then. Thanks for letting me know. 209.213.71.78 22:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morello crime family[edit]

You're right about the naming conventions, sorry. I've moved or redirected so many uncapitalized pages before, it's become a reflex. (On the other hand, it seems you restored the original, creating duplicate pages; if this should come up again, consult Help:Renaming (moving) a page.) Thanks for the friendly reminder, and happy edits. Deltabeignet 22:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. I was in the middle of editing and I didn't notice the page had been moved until I saw the history. Thanks again. 209.213.71.78 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plug Uglies[edit]

I appreciate the dialogue on the Plug Uglies. I think it has been very open and fair-minded. Let me know if you would like me to send along a copy of Hanging Henry Gambrill. I am confident that once you see how I've put together the story you will agree that my contention is very sound. I will check back here, and we can make arrangements. Am confident also that you will enjoy the story. Tracy Matthew Melton

Mickey Cohen[edit]

Greetings.... a question has been raised in the 1947 project (1947project.blogspot.com) about the source of your story about Mickey Cohen shooting up the Roosevelt Hotel. I told the individual to check here.

Sincerely,

Larry Harnisch.

AfD nomination of List of historical criminals of New York City[edit]

I have nominated List of historical criminals of New York City, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical criminals of New York City. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chexmix53 (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1886 in organized crime[edit]

The article 1886 in organized crime has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for two years.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Organized crime history[edit]

Category:Organized crime history, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern street gangs has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Modern street gangs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.213.71.78&oldid=1141313375"