User talk:TheTechnician27/Archives/2021/February

DYK for Socrates Nelson

On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Socrates Nelson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Socrates Nelson sold a block of land to the city of Stillwater, Minnesota, for $5 in 1867 for the building of a new county courthouse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Socrates Nelson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Socrates Nelson), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for your work with the Socrates Nelson article-RFD (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this until just now. Thank you so much for creating the article in the first place. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Link needed}}

I noticed you added this template here. Can you tell me what it is for? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC).

Hey, sorry I took so long to respond. This was added because the citation originally had a URL access date attached, but the link had never been posted, and I couldn't find one on the Star's website. I believe it would have been on there at some point, as their website dates back to at least 1996 – the year the Wayback Machine started capturing it. I figured someone more savvy than I am could try to look for a link, so we don't need readers to rely on a paywalled or otherwise inaccessible means of checking our sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Remi Korchemny page edit

Hi. Not sure where exactly should I write you but I’ll try here in hopes you will see it.

First off, thanks very much for updating the page! Besides the conflict of interest I have, I certainly don’t know how to update it as good as you!

I checked it quickly so it’ll take me a few days to gather more information that is missing and will get back to you. But I did pretty much cover a lot in my last edit that has been taken down.

Meanwhile, the main thing last time I tried to edit, I was asked by the moderator where did I get that he has a PhD in sports physiology. So I have already attached one of his publications by IAAF where you can see about his brief bio. Other than that, there is a long list of world class athletes he coached including Oakland riders from the 80’s when they won Super Bowl. He worked directly under riders’ head coach as a speed development specialist. Also coaching at Stamford university in Palo Alto, CA, United States army track and field team, etc...

So anyway, I will get back to you in a couple of days and thanks very much! Radspeed (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Radspeed. Sorry for getting back to you so late, but you're right; it's almost always best to contact a user at their talk page if you want to reach them.

It sounds like the biographical information you're talking about is about the time between his moving to the US and the BALCO scandal, which is perfect, as I have yet to create a section filling in the gap from 1975 to 2003 which would cover his career as a coach in the US. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Ahh, no worries at all and I want to thank you very much for making updates! I am yet to get back to you with info I know... If I may... regarding occupation, I personally believe, it would be good to label it as a “sprints coach” as opposed to personal trainer - but that’s just me. (Besides being a sprinter himself, all the sprinters he developed, also basing off the fact Remi was a chairman of the USATF sprint development committee (USA Track & Field).

Again - you are very much appreciated Sir/Mme!

Be back to you with some information in a day or two... Radspeed (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all! The reason I listed his occupation as a personal trainer while listing his sport as 'Sprint (coach)' with a 'Retired' date is because Korchemny quit coaching in 2007. Therefore, I see his occupation post-scandal as more akin to a personal trainer. From our article: "A personal trainer is an individual who has earned a certification that demonstrates they have achieved a level of competency for creating and delivering safe and effective exercise programs for apparently healthy individuals and groups or those with medical clearance to exercise. They motivate clients by collaborating to set goals, providing meaningful feedback, and by being a reliable source for accountability." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Bullock

Hello! I saw that you expanded the article Morgan Bullock (which I created) earlier today, and I really appreciated your edits. I wanted to let you know that the article is currently being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Bullock. I'm not sure what the protocol is for whether I should let you know, but I would appreciate your help (or simply your input) if you have a chance as I don't have much experience with AfD. Thanks! Aerin17 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Aerin. It's funny you should bring this up: I actually saw the AfD notice and was planning to vote just before I checked my talk page. For future reference, the behavioral guideline for notifying another editor of a discussion, which I think you did a fine job of here, can be found at WP:CANVASS. It's worth a read, but the gist of it is that the notification should be done openly on a limited scale with a neutral message to a nonpartisan audience. You contacted only me (small-scale and fairly non-partisan, as I had no involvement with the article until yesterday) on-Wiki (openly) with a neutral message.

I wouldn't fret too much about the AfD discussion, as while "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" looks menacing, anyone can nominate an article for deletion, and it can actually be counter-intuitively beneficial for an article if it survives (which I have little doubt this one will) for these reasons:

1) It cannot be proposed for deletion after this. An article is ineligible for a PROD (an uncontroversial deletion) if it is being discussed or has ever been discussed at AfD.

2) It can both deter and influence future AfD discussions, as there's now a public record of the previous discussion that can be reviewed by a would-be nominator and by voters and arbiters of any future AfD discussions.

3) It can provide incentive to improve the article. I don't think that's the case here, as I think the article was fine when it was nominated, but you'd be surprised at the massive overhauls articles can go through when an editor feels like an article has been unduely nominated. This is partially because one of Wikipedia's two competing philosophies is that there is no deadline, whereas an AfD discussion suddenly creates a tangible deadline of 7 days. If you don't believe me, take a look at the article Greg Downs (writer) before it was nominated versus after the discussion was resolved as 'Keep'.

Having participated in AfD discussions for a while a couple years back, I only remember one article coming close to being (I believe) unjustly deleted, and even then, I, as a concerned editor, was able to turn the discussion around. Basically, I think your article will be totally fine and will stand as a welcome contribution to the encyclopedia, and its nomination to AfD isn't at all a reflection on your ability as an editor so much as it was the nominee believing the subject fell short of Wikipedia's notability criteria. :) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi TheTechnician27. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks so much; I'm happy to help out! I feel dumb for already having a question on my second review, but I just wanted to make sure: I was considering nominating Katherine Brucker for G4, as it was unanimously nominated for deletion for notability purposes last year. If anything, this new version of the article seems to be substantially less complete than what I can glean from the previous version (per a cached lead found through DuckDuckGo, the original started: "Katherine Brucker is a career member of the U.S. Foreign Service who is Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Cote d'Ivoire. She was Chargé d' Affaires until Ambassador Richard K. Bell assumed office on October 10, 2019. Brucker earned a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.")

However, this line in G4 gave me pause: "[G4] excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Would this mean that I just don't mark the article as reviewed and bring it to AfD instead, or does "not substantially identical" just mean e.g. if this new article were about an entirely different Katherine Brucker? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, first off, feel free to ask questions (either here or at WT:NPR); I'd much rather see questions than mistakes. Regarding this case, G4 is a bit weird in that unless you have admin privileges and can review deleted articles, it's kind of a shot in the dark. In this case, I can confirm your suspicions that the recreated article was in even worse shape than the AfD'd version, so I went ahead and deleted it myself. "Not substantially identical" essentially means that the underlying issue from the AfD discussion clearly remains unaddressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)