Jump to content

User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EricEnfermero. 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)

darryl strawberry

it was funny, im sure darryl would have loved it since hes named in adam sandlers thanksgiving song! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bake McBride

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bake McBride 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bake McBride

The article Bake McBride you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bake McBride 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Phillipa Soo

The edits to the page were meant simply as a parody on Hamilton lyrics. I am a personal friend of Phillipa "Pippa" Soo and did not at all add bias to the article. Please revert the deletion of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This wouldn't be right forum to parody those lyrics. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hacked Account

I am terribly sorry for the edits made on behalf of my account in the last 24 hours. Someone accessed my password and hacked my account. This allowed them to make edits to articles that were not authorized by me. Please excuse the past edits, as these were not reflective of my reputation on Wikipedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I followed our procedure here for letting Wikipedia know about compromised accounts. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
"Successfully de-orphaned!"
... you were recipient
no. 1056 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph DeLee

The article Joseph DeLee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph DeLee 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 Animalparty -- Animalparty (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, You've just rollbacked me at AN3 & I'm not entirely sure why ? ...., I'm assuming it was accidental?, Thanks. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, yes, that was inadvertent. I think my mobile device was in my pocket at the time. My apologies! EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Haha no worries :), I had a feeling it was mobile related as usually if anyone gets reverted via the watchlist then 9 times out of 10 it's always mobiles that are the cause, Anyway no harm done :), Hope you had a great xmas & hope you have a great New Year, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hello, Larry Hockett. 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.
@Patriotsontop: - I replied. If you have more questions, you might consider asking them on this page, if you are comfortable doing that. It's a little easier to link to policies or guidelines from this page as opposed to describing these things in an email. Hope your new year is good. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EricEnfermero!

Happy New Year!

EricEnfermero,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Donner60! Same to you! EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason behind Redundant warnings

Is so that admins know that the vandal was warned after each and every attack. That way, the guy can't claim he didn't know. L3X1 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

He can claim anything he wants, but when you issue several warnings after a user has stopped making unconstructive edits, it's hard to understand what you want to happen there. In fact, there's a risk that the editor might restart just because he sees he's really getting under your skin. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I was getting frustrated, because his constant vandalism was preventing me from reverting, it threw an error when I tried. L3X1 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, Eric. I left you a DYK review here with a few sourcing issues to take care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Burns (baseball)

On 13 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tom Burns (baseball), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fred Pfeffer, Tom Burns, and Ned Williamson each had three hits in the same inning of an 1883 major-league baseball game, and no other player had a three-hit inning until 1953? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tom Burns (baseball)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Pfeffer

On 13 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fred Pfeffer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fred Pfeffer, Tom Burns, and Ned Williamson each had three hits in the same inning of an 1883 major-league baseball game, and no other player had a three-hit inning until 1953? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fred Pfeffer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Help in Liam Payne

So i see that my contribution in Liam Payne's page in Wikipedia was taken wrong I left the genre R&B unsourced due to im not experienced at citing references there are many articles that I have read about Liam Payne going R&B-leaning so I decided to add genres on his page but sadly the articles I cited didn't work so this is my reason on leaving genres uncited. Desertrose42526 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You actually figured out how to include the sources; the problem was just that the information was sourced to a wiki (a source that can be edited by anyone). We don't consider wikis (like Wikia or any other Wikipedia article) to be reliable sources. As a hypothetical, what if I edited Wikia to say that Liam Payne was a bluegrass singer and then I came to Wikipedia and cited that? People could actually rewrite parts of history if we based our articles on wikis.
I feel like you're definitely capable of providing sources, but if you aren't wanting to do so right now, you might consider contributing in a slightly different manner. For example, a lot of people focus on fixing spelling and grammar issues. That wouldn't require any sources and it would allow you to edit productively while learning more about reliable sources. It looks like you've already received multiple warnings for your unsourced genre changes, and those issues can escalate and result in your being blocked. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Information icon Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Yaroo. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Creeperparty568: - Good evening. There has been a misunderstanding. I didn't create the article in question. I removed the CSD template (while improving the tone quite a bit) because that CSD criterion (WP:CSD#A7) wasn't in any way relevant to the article. A7 covers a lot of things, but there is no mention of it applying to populated places.
If you look at the link to the geographic features notability guideline that you placed on the article, you will see that populated and legally recognized places are generally presumed to be notable. The article claims that it is a Pakistani union council, hence a legally recognized populated place, which is enough to save it from CSD. You can continue to improve the article by adding sourced information if you're looking to be the most productive on this particular entry. Let me know if you have questions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@EricEnfermero: - Ok. That tag was the only tag I could find for that. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense that they wouldn't have a CSD criterion for places, since they are presumed to be notable. I know it feels like there are a million of these small village articles on WP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Agnes Fay Morgan

Hello! Your submission of Agnes Fay Morgan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Agnes Fay Morgan

On 21 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnes Fay Morgan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Agnes Fay Morgan conducted a nutritional study with foxes, she presented her data wearing a stole made from the fur of her subjects? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Fay Morgan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agnes Fay Morgan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agnes Fay Morgan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agnes Fay Morgan 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Hollimon DYK effort

Hi Eric. I've let some days get away from me and I'm running out of time to have Mike Hollimon ready for a DYK nom. If you would be willing to help me get it there, I'd be happy to share DYK credit with you. I've already completed the QPQ review and I did find a really good source (2008 media guide). Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're already there on the 5x expansion requirement. You should add a source behind the sentence about transferring to Oral Roberts - that should be easy enough. Baseball-Reference.com says that he was drafted a third time (by DET in 2005) but our article doesn't mention whether he was drafted or just signed as a free agent.
My biggest concern is that I don't see a fact in the article that would work well as a DYK hook; it's all fairly routine sports reporting. I think you've done a great job expanding this, but I can't yet find anything "hooky" about this subject. People certainly have different opinions about what constitutes a catchy hook, but I haven't run across anything so far that makes this player very unique. I can keep looking though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've cleaned up the sourcing issues regarding the transfer and the draft. I'll also keep trying to find something that would work for a hook. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Hollimon's status as a former player who became an agent could make for an interesting hook. What do you think of that possibility? Lepricavark (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thought a little bit about that, but I'm not sure if that's interesting to a broad audience. Up to you. I'll keep thinking though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've given it a shot: Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Hollimon. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agnes Fay Morgan

The article Agnes Fay Morgan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agnes Fay Morgan 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to articles relating to HDN

I'm a bit confused, and you'll have to forgive me for not knowing how to use wikipedia fully. The articles are listed as stubs. I'm including acceptable treatments used by one of the world's foremost experts. Would you prefer I reference every sentence with one of the 53 references from peer reviewed medical journals? Would that be better? I've never worked on wikipedia articles before because I haven't had the passion or drive to edit them. I thought it would be easier to include one reference, that includes all 53 references. I've spent 4 years working on combining my research into a book for women going through this disease. After watching so many women loose babies to bad advice out there and simple lack of knowledge about current treatments, it bothers me to see articles that are so outdated on here. For many of the articles, I'm only seeing one or two references. There's next to no information about current testing methods, testing by free-cell fetal DNA, or any of the other new developments. I also have no idea how to retrieve my wikipedia password because somehow it registered without an email address? I have no idea how to use this talk thing either. m6kinney1 I have no idea if that signed this thing or not.

Also, if my site is not an acceptable external link, why in the world is an online coombs test that only considers rh-D status acceptable? There's absolutely nothing valid about an online enter your blood type and find out if you have existing antibodies. It shows if there is a valid chance for developing anti-D but not for any of the 50+ other antigens that cause Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn.

Yes - almost every assertion in a medical article should be supported by a reference that complies with WP:MEDRS. That doesn't mean that you'll have a citation in every sentence; you could, for example, support an entire paragraph with an appropriate reference. In general, secondary sources are preferred, and promoting your own material is almost never a good idea. By saying that your site is unacceptable, I am not intending to comment on the validity of any other sites. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Palindrome

I punted this to 3RR again. Meters (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. More than any argument about cats or cars, there's just a certain editing style behind all of this that's not easy for me to accept. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll happily accept whatever version we agree on, but I see no valid reason to remove the longer version, and I don't want to see a decision made by edit warring against what appears to be growing consensus. Meters (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Flora Molton

On 14 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flora Molton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that gospel street singer Flora Molton performed in downtown Washington, D.C., into her eighties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flora Molton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Flora Molton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

Hello, EricEnfermero! I'm the same dynamic IP from the Bank's [sic] talk page. I just did a quick search of YahwehSaves in the admin-boards archives and, daaaaammmnnn. Years, upon years; first MILHIST and now baseball. Severe competency and IDH issues which should be eligible for some sort of LTA-type vacation. The aggravation and time-consumption of this user is excessive, to say the least. I was wondering if you have, or know of, a timeline of diffs that show the disruptiveness over time. If there is sufficient evidence, I'll take it to AN myself. I'm only on WP part-time, so to speak, so it takes me time to look these things up myself. I think some light needs to be shone on this. Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm frustrated with the situation, but I'm torn because I really try to stay off of the admin boards. I know those forums have purposes, but I think they can become time vacuums that detract from the amount of time we spend building the encyclopedia. I like staying away from politics and just being able to write/edit content. I certainly haven't kept any sort of log, but a few things (most of the stuff I mentioned on the Banks talk page thread) were egregious enough to be memorable.
Generally I only get frustrated with people who are intentionally unconstructive, and it's not my goal to get good-faith editors into any trouble. In this case, it's difficult because I don't think YS really has bad intentions. He just has very strong convictions about a lot of things, and there's nothing - not the MOS, not talk page consensus, not rational discussion, not 3RR guidelines, not an explanation of grammar rules - that can convince him that some of his convictions are inaccurate.
We are able to stay away from each other for the most part, but our interests overlap just enough that we'll eventually run into each other. I abandoned most of my attempts to expand HOF and 1960s-ish baseball articles just to avoid him, but I still feel compelled to jump in when I see counterproductive edits on my watchlist. I don't know where to go from here, but I'm thinking things over. I may just cool it here for a bit and try to be more productive off-wiki until I have some sort of epiphany. Have a good evening - and thanks for reaching out. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Hollimon

On 23 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Hollimon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former Major League Baseball player Mike Hollimon became an executive for a player representation agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Hollimon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mike Hollimon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Section heading

I was just going for not changing your words, not trying to make you look like a moron. Thanks for adding your own phrasing to section head. — LlywelynII 15:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi, I wanted to congratulate you for your work on the Death of Irene Garza. These topics are often underrepresented, I so appreciate you writing this. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate this, @ComputerJA:. I really like your Fischer article; what a sad story! I think you are going to have another GA to add to your impressive record. If you would ever like someone to do some light copyediting or to take a second look at one of your entries, feel free to send me a message.
The Garza article was very interesting to write, but I may need to rephrase a few things so as not to create a BLP issue. There's no conviction at this point, but it's difficult to even write the article without giving some weight to the overwhelming coverage that the lone suspect has received in reliable sources. No one is describing the case as a huge mystery, except for the former DA, but these trials can take a long time to proceed.
I've also thought of writing about the death of Mariah Alvarez in Harlingen; the suspect in that sad case was arrested, convicted and sent to death row. I might wait though; living death row inmates can invite controversy, and sometimes you end up fighting with random IP editors who want to introduce opinions or original research into that type of entry. Anyway, thanks for your note. It's always great to meet someone with similar interests on WP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
My record isn't as impressive as yours! My GA articles are meh. I had come across some of your GA articles before and I'm kind of trying to use the same format/style you use. I was semi-tired from Wikipedia for almost 2 years, so there's a lot of work to be done.
It will be interesting to see how Garza's case plays out. I'll be happy to review it if you ever nominate it for GA or just want for someone to take a detailed look at it.
The next article I want to write/expand is Mark Kilroy's. I think it has the potential to be a great article since the one we have now is really short. It has over 100 views per day, so I think it's time. Anyways, thank you for your message and keep up the great work. Feel free to drop me a message if anything comes up that you think is down my alley. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi ComputerJA - Great work on this entry. We definitely have entries at least this long that pass GA reviews, so I don't think it's too long. Having taken a rather casual glance at it, the sourcing seems strong and it stays on topic; sometimes longer articles seem to wander off course, but I don't see that here. If you are thinking of eventually taking this to FA (where I don't have much experience at all), this level of detail might be very helpful.
My instinct is to say that you probably don't need to split this. Even in the case of extremely high-profile murder trials that are daily household news across every media outlet in the US, we usually just have one article for the whole case. There is one entry for the O. J. Simpson murder case, for example, though the notable people in that case also have their own entries. I don't get the impression that the subjects in your case are independently notable, so I would keep it all together. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Art + Feminism

Hi EricEnfermero -- I think we are editing the same article at the moment. Are you at the Toronto wiki edit-a-thon by any chance? Kittycatpizza (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kittycatpizza - Thanks for your work. I'm actually in the southern US, just editing here and there based on what pops up on Recent Changes or my Watchlist today. I've worked on a few biographies as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, but I really know almost nothing about art. Good luck to you! EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Irene Garza

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Irene Garza 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 ComputerJA -- ComputerJA (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Irene Garza

The article Death of Irene Garza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Irene Garza 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 ComputerJA -- ComputerJA (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Nice job! I really enjoyed reading the article again and in detail. If in the future you want to nominate this for FA, let me know. I have no experience in it but we can work together. I can also ask for Fanning's book through an interlibrary loan and update the article accordingly. Thanks! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. At some point I might look at FA. I've really only been to FA once, when my collaborator nominated an entry very prematurely. At the time, it seemed like I was "out of my league" at FA. I'll be curious to see what happens at trial and how the article will need to updated at that time. Since physical evidence can be so important to eliminating reasonable doubt, I think this might be a tough conviction.
I have thought about going to FA with Elmer Ernest Southard (very different subject matter); it was the second article I started on WP and is the oldest of my full-length articles. I got a peer review a long time ago and then got busy with other things. I have a full-length biography of the subject and need to update the entry. That's my long-winded way of saying that I'll probably work on that one before I go to FA with any others. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tina Watman Deleted Page Information Retrieval

Hi Eric, I wrote a page for Tina Watman on Saturday, March 4th, 2017, and it got deleted, despite my attempting to contest the speedy deletion. It was a contribution to the Art+Feminism wiki-edit-a-thon at Transylvania University. It first got nominated after half my page got deleted by a cruel bot that decided it wouldn't let me save my work because it didn't like an external link to a public, official facebook page for a place mentioned in the article. While I'll be the first to admit that some of my sources were a bit of a stretch (most notably a PDF events calendar that doesn't have a way to access it anymore, and I stumbled across during my internet search), they were all legitimate, and I'm rather annoyed that the page was deleted. However, I do not feel this was fair, as her claim to significance is simple: is she a painter. And as the guide denotes: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This is exceptionally frustrating, since I've seen MANY wikipedia pages in my day that may not even have a single citation, and the article may be all of a sentence long, and such articles are permitted to stay on Wikipedia.

It appears to claim that while she's real, wikipedia doesn't see a reason for her to have a page. Which is rather offensive, considering the point of our edit-a-thon was to better represent female artists. There was also some claim that there was unambiguous promotion.The information provided was purely a factual description of the link and the information provided in the shop area, which is the most reliable and extensive display of images of her work. I noted that it was a shop and that it included prices. It would be simple to remove this part of the information, and the link was provided to prevent copywrite infringement.

I abstained from providing additional information that I know from personal knowledge, since there's no specific way to cite that, or adding her birth date since that was only available though her Facebook page.

Please forgive my bitter ranting, but I'm sure you can imagine I'm frustrated. All that said, I'd very much like to retrive the page write up so that I can attempt to improve it and repost it at a later date. I would also suggest that a draft format be provided for future writers.

Thank you, HarpAngel999 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi HarpAngel999 - I'm really sorry for being the root of a frustrating experience for you, especially while you were participating in an edit-a-thon to designed to increase WP's coverage of notable women. I've worked on several biographies that fall under WikiProject Women in Red, and I'm acutely sensitive to the serious underrepresentation of women as WP subjects. It looks like I did nominate your article for deletion (though I didn't delete it) and I'll try to explain why.
In addition to the issues of coverage of women, we also have the problem you identified yourself: We are burdened by a large number of articles that don't meet encyclopedic standards and probably never will. We will probably never track down and delete or improve all of the crummy articles, but in recent years, we at least gotten smarter about not compounding that issue. That's actually why WP requires that today's articles clearly indicate that they meet certain standards for notability. Each type of article has notability standards; you can think of these as some of the things that help articles not to get deleted.
For example, I write a lot of articles about scientists, researchers and professors, so I always compare a subject's qualifications against the notability guideline at WP:PROF. If the professor meets one of the criteria there and I can support that with reliable sources, the article should be pretty safe from deletion. If not, I find another subject to write about. (There is also another notability guideline, applicable to any subject - WP:GNG - but it requires more of a judgment call.) For artists, see WP:ARTIST; artists are a little tricky because there is still some judgment required to determine what constitutes major contributions.
I wish I remembered more about your actual article. There are three common methods of nominating articles for deletion, and I chose the most drastic option, which I only select for articles that are either blatantly promotional or that don't seem to have any indication of notability at all. While I am involved regularly in deletion discussions, I have only chosen to nominate five articles for CSD this year (as you can see here). Google is not the end-all, be-all of reference searches, but a Google search sort of illustrates the problem here. The relevant results are almost all social media (which doesn't really help with notability) or sources affiliated with Watman herself. I don't really see any significant independent coverage that could support the writing of an encyclopedia article.
To my knowledge, there's not really an article template per se, but we do have the Article Wizard, which walks new editors through the basic steps of preparing to write an article. Each user also has a Sandbox, accessible from the upper right corner of your screen. If I start an article and have to stop before it's ready to be published, I just save it in my sandbox and come back to it later. If I want to save it as an article outside of my sandbox, I know that it must be solid enough to withstand a deletion nomination.
With all of that said, non-administrators can nominate articles for deletion, but we can't delete articles or retrieve deleted articles. If you'll leave a message at User talk:CactusWriter, he can probably advise you as to the feasibility of retrieving your article. Part of me is hoping that you'll pick a subject with a stronger case for notability, but I can understand that it's hard to give up on an article you've already put work into.
If you're interested, here is a list of artists that have articles on other Wikipedias but not on the English WP; a few of these are actually American artists. An article on another version of WP is not a guarantee of notability, but it's probably a start. Let me know if I can help further, and again, I apologize for making you frustrated. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rosaura Sanchez

The article Rosaura Sanchez has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you propose for deletion of abdul majid dar

Mr. Eric, you have recently proposed for deletion of the aforementioned page, and no reasonable reason is given. Wiki222222 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The subjects of Wikipedia articles must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I am happy to explain this to you in more detail if the deletion nomination and the associated links do not adequately do so. However, based on the editing patterns that I have seen on this article, I am somewhat afraid that you won't be willing to listen to the advice of experienced WP editors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Eric, thanks for your reply. You can go through the edits and see. If any user has problem with something he can revert that back but reverting the whole content is not upto scratch. I appreciate your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki222222 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Reverting should really only be a small part of the equation. In fact, we have a guideline, WP:3RR, that tells us that editors should restrict themselves to no more than three reverts within an article in a 24-hour period. Listening and learning should play a much larger role than reverting, especially for new editors (and especially for new editors who come here with the purpose of promoting a subject on the encyclopedia). The issue is that you are interacting with experienced WP editors in a very condescending manner, trying to give them advice about editing Wikipedia. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's not true, i know my conscience and i was not advising them i was just asking because if any experienced WP has problem with any particular thing, he is free to do that but reverting my whole edit is a bit of ignorance on your part. I apologise for doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki222222 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

None of your reverts or your user talk page messages came across as questions. Some people might say that restoring the same content over and over again - even after being advised that the edits were problematic - is a bit of ignorance. Other people might say that creating or expanding autobiographical material on Wikipedia is more than a bit of ignorance. Think about that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for reverting back the same content. From know onwards i will take care of these things. Wiki222222 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Moses Fleetwood Walker

I recently expanded the article on this ball player. Not a Negro leaguer like Leon Day was, but he is considered the first person to openly play organized baseball as a black man. If you have time, I encourage you to look it over, mostly for syntax. I re-read it several times before I transferred it to main space, but sometimes I'll just miss a few mistakes regardless of how thorough I am. Thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Great work on this. These early black players don't always get enough coverage, so that can make them challenging to expand. Thanks for doing it. After taking an initial look at it, here are some thoughts:
  • I made some edits, but they were mostly for minor things like hyphens and punctuation. I fixed a few links (American Association, major league, not guilty) that led to disambiguation pages instead of articles.
  • If you're interested, there's a gadget you can add to your preferences (I can't remember the name or how I did it) that will easily turn disambiguation page links yellow in any article, making them easy to spot. It also turns redirects (which you might not even want to fix) a slightly annoying green, but I got used to that. I used to get a lot of talk page messages from bots about my disambiguation links, but now it's easy to catch those myself. Maybe someone is reading my talk page and knows what this gadget is called.
  • I think this article has several facts that could be considered for DYK - what an interesting life this subject had! The article was at >9,000 characters before you got to it, so a 5x expansion would be ridiculous, but if you decide to take this to Good Article status, I think you should also take it to DYK.
Let me know how I can help moving forward. I might peek back in on the article this weekend when I have a little more time to set aside. Thanks for your work! EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you as well for the improvements. I will look into that gadget you spoke of. I think Walker could easily be accepted at DYK, either for parts of his baseball career or even as a writer. For a long time, I knew Jackie Robinson was not the first black baseball player, but I never found out who really held that honor until recently. If you are ever looking for good reading material, Fleet's biography Fleet Walker's Divided Heart, my main source for the article, is highly recommended. It may be awhile before someone reviews my GA request; I'm still waiting for one for Leon Day.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for David Martin Long

On 21 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Martin Long, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that convicted murderer David Martin Long was on life support two days before he was executed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Martin Long. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Martin Long), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

April editathon on psychologists at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's
April 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Biographies, writings, achievements, organizations

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK 25

The 25 DYK Medal
for 25 DYK contributions DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

+cat and article Move

Before moving a +cat or article discuss on the talk page. IQ125 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting take on the events this morning, the root of which was creating a category with poor use of basic capitalization rules. WP:MOVE talks about investigating and planning category moves, but not about discussing whether the word American should use an uppercase A on any talk page. I'm honestly not sure how else to respond to you here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Long

May be you still could vote "keep" for the article Jeffrey Long here: [1] . That may protect also your work you had done on the article. Thank you. Wega14 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Good evening, Wega14. I was happy to do some work on that entry, but I still don't have a strong opinion on whether the entry should be deleted or kept. With my AFD comment I was just letting people know that the article had been restructured a bit since the deletion discussion began. Usually if an experienced editor has not voted in an AFD, it's because they haven't formed an opinion, so there is usually no need to ask them to do so on the AFD page or on their user talk page. It looks like the AFD is leaning in the direction of a keep. It feels good when I do some work on an article that gets kept at AFD. When I work on one that gets deleted, I really don't look at it as lost or wasted work; I really see it as Wikipedia processes (consensus and deletion discussions) playing themselves out as designed. Occasionally, I improve an article to the extent that I also vote keep (W. Walter Menninger in 2014, as an example), but in this case the transformation just isn't as obvious.
One thing that may help you: Right now the entry lists an external link that is described as a reply at neurology.org. That makes it sound like he was just posting something on a random website. In reality, that was a letter that was published in the journal Neurology. I am not 100% sure that publications like letters to the editor need to be listed, but if you keep this in the article, it should probably follow the format of a journal citation. See Template:Cite journal for more information about that. Have a good night. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Commas

Thank you for your message (which I don't know how to respond to on my own wall, sorry!). I will be more careful in making comma-related edits. I didn't realize they were not helpful. Here2help (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for just now reaching out. I assumed that you would be getting a ton of notifications about your edits being undone. When even one of mine is undone, I get a pretty prominent notification, so I'm able to avoid making a series of similar mistakes. I appreciate your reply. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've not noticed any of those notifications, but I'm relatively new to this and am a technophobe. Anyway, will watch my comma edits. Thanks again.

It's no problem. I notice that some of your non-comma contributions are better, so I don't want to be too discouraging. If you look at the upper right corner of your screen, to the right of your username, there are two gray icons. Those will light up with a red number when you have notifications about users undoing your edits, mentioning you in a talk page thread, or thanking you for a particular edit. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please

Hey, Pinckney Benedict asked his students to change his Wikipedia article for extra credit. Is there any way we can stop getting blocked? Thanks.

Chaptain95 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't think of a way for you to avoid a block (other than not making any further problem edits), regardless of who instructed you to make these unconstructive edits. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you continue to delete relevant content (including our registered trademarks) from WeGoLook's wikipage?

EricEnfermero, Eric Enfermero, not only are you deleting content produced by reliable sources, you are removing our registered trademarks on WeGoLook, Lookers and even Crawford & Company?

Is this a tactic to encourage us to utilize your services to "create content" for our wikipedia page?

Please do not make any changes to our page in the future. If you propose changes, please email me: (Redacted) and we will address it.

Otherwise, I will involve our attorney and have him handle this. It is inexcusable that Wikipedia allows people who are trying to engage wikipedia management services to delete real and relevant content in order to do so.

We are filing an official request to block your deletions with Wikipedia as well.

Thank you,

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.246.100.194 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robin - I'm glad that you at least reached out to me given your serious misgivings (and, if I'm being honest, your serious misunderstandings) about my WP contributions and the general workings of WP. There is a lot to address here, but I can start with the big stuff. Subjects of WP articles don't really have any unique authority over the content on those entries. We encourage people with conflicts of interest to discuss factual inaccuracies on the talk page of the article in question, but WP is different from your organization's Internet site, where you might have a company representative who maintains the site in the state that reflects best on the company. WP entries are edited by volunteers and they should reflect the coverage of the company that is found in independent reliable sources. For this reason, WP entries represent what some call "warts and all" coverage of their subjects, which is one reason why having a WP page can actually be a bit of a risk for marginally notable individuals or companies.
The only content I create on WP is in my capacity as a volunteer. There are enough notable subjects out there that I have never solicited nominations for this sort of thing. I do not "engage Wikipedia management services" and I don't even know what that means. From what I can tell, I edited WeGoLook a few times one afternoon about three weeks ago. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that there is some ongoing editing campaign being waged against WeGoLook. As far as I can tell, I have never edited Crawford & Company, and Lookers is an entry about a UK car dealership company, so I don't fully understand what you are getting at.
As far as the edits I made to WeGoLook, I removed info that was sourced only to material authored by the company's CEO; if I need to explain why that sort of referencing is so problematic, I can do so, but it's not my intent to insult your intelligence. My other edits removed discussion of the unveiling of a company logo (that kind of information isn't encyclopedic, as the general reader isn't going to care), fixed some formatting like the capitalization of section headings, and removed some non-neutral statements and predictions about the company's reach into other countries. As far as removing registered trademarks, I simply don't know what you mean. I really don't understand how any of this could lead to bringing up the subject of legal action. On that note, please see WP:NLT. I'm a little shocked that any businessperson would use this sort of tone on behalf of an organization; you are coming across as a bit of a bully when we are simply trying to help your contributors to better understand WP guidelines.
Even if I find some of this to be a little ridiculous, I'm still happy to help you with questions related to WP. I just hope that our future communications could be a little more clearly worded, cordial and grounded in reality. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi EricEnfermero and IP; hope you don't mind but I have removed the email address from the original post in this thread, as it falls into the category of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. IP, this will help prevent misuse of your email address by random passersby. In passing the easiest way to get a fellow Wikipedian to contact you via email is to set up an account, link it to an email address and get people to use the "Email this user" feature in the left-hand toolbar on your page. That way you can receive emails from other Wikipedians without necessarily publishing your personal email address. There's more info on Wikipedia emails at this link.
As always am also happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Larry_Hockett/Archive_11&oldid=1076235972"