User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for re-review

Hi Eric, Thanx for taking time for reviewing my Article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shamin Mannan. As per your suggestions I have updated it by adding mutiple notable references. So please re-review it and tell me whether my article can now be accepted. Thanx. Waiting for your reply- --Ashishrajsoni (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I usually let someone else re-review, just to make sure that everything is fair. Best of luck to you. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reich

Hi Eric, just a note to say thank you for the review, your suggestions for improvement, and the promotion. The time and thought you put into it is much appreciated. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for working on this quality article for more than eight years, including some times where it looks like things were a bit contentious. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In regards to this message...

==March 2013==

Just a quick heads-up that I undid a couple of your edits to Andy Samberg. Only one of the sources in the infobox is accessible without a subscription, but it does show a David AJ Samberg with Andy's date of birth. Other online sources also support that birth name. To change it, we would just need a reliable source saying that it's actually Andrew. Be aware that Wikipedia has a specific definition of vandalism - no one is doing it to this article. Just thought that I'd let you know why I changed the article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Samberg himself has said that his name is NOT David. I suppose when someone tells you that their name isn't something, that means you start insisting it is? How much more of a reliable source do you need than someone saying what their name isn't? Please correct your mistakes by undoing your undo's and stop insisting you know his name better than he does. LordOfTheWolves (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous link regarding reliable sources. I think that's really all there is to say. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 13:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Cyr

You may want to reconsider Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Cyr. I have deleted the main space article because it was substantially identical to Steven Cyr which was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous promotion) and WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). The version at AFC isn't quite the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My original plan was to decline the AfC submission as a duplicate and then clean up the existing article, as that seemed a little easier to me at the time. When I saved the edit to the mainspace article, I saw that it had been deleted while I was working. I'm fine with whichever way we decide to proceed. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, assume that the main space articles had been deleted before you came across that AFC submission. How would you have evaluated it if there weren't already duplicates in main space? The one on AFC looked different (probably to fix the copvio problems that the main space article had) but it still seemed unambiguously promotional. If you agree, would you revise your closure? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Even under that assumption, I would agree with you that the AfC submission was clearly promotional. Are you asking me to change the reason for my decline, or to accept it anyway and just remove the promotional material? I'll do what you want; I'm just trying to ensure that I'm clear on what that is. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of this discussion.

I have not involved myself with AFC procedures so I'm not sure what's best; I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the submitter of an AFC "owns" the article until it is moved to main space. If not, then if the promotional and copyvio material can be removed without requiring a substantial rewrite and the article is worthy of moving to main space after cleaning it up, then it should be approved. Otherwise I'd either leave it as is in its current state, or change the closure rationale. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice that there's another AFC submission open now, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Mark Cyr. It was initially declined, but the decline was reverted; there were concerns about the speed and integrity of that reviewer's work. To avoid further confusing the situation, I think it is best to leave the previous submission as is and to let the current one play out. Thanks for getting back to me. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 06:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I remember now that one reason I pursued this at all with you was because the author of the article you reviewed was a sockmaster of another account, both of which created multiple similar articles in main space. I blocked them and wrote to the original that AFC was the way to go when there's a conflict of interest, and that I had asked the reviewer to give it another look. See User talk:Stevencyr#Blocked.

I recall the reason for my asking you was for two reasons: (a) you declined the AFC because the topic existed in main space, without realizing that the same person wrote both the AFC and the main space article, and (b) the AFC version you reviewed was different enough from the other deleted versions that it may deserve a second look beyond noticing that the topic existed in main space.

The other AFC you mentioned in your last reply was one written by a sockpuppet. It has now been declined by the same person who reverted the original reviewer's decline, as a copyright violation.

Anyway, since you wrote earlier that you would have declined it anyway as a stand-alone AFC without a duplicate main space topic, I am satisfied that this issue is resolved. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Lauren Simonetti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lauren Simonetti is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Simonetti until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ducknish (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I felt like she was a significant contributor to a major news agency, but you're right that it isn't easy to find significant third-party coverage of her. Probably not one of my better moves to push that article through, at least not so soon. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Larry Hockett. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Luther Christman

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN for The Decay of Fiction

New messages! Thanks and cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the latest article edits by tomorrow evening. Thanks! Have a good week. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 13:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, EricEnfermero. You have new messages at Talk:The Decay of Fiction/GA1. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Please take a look once again ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a closer look at the changes and I hope that we can wrap this up tomorrow. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Larry Hockett/Archive 2, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Good article drive

Eric, thanks for signing up to help. Tomorrow is the kickoff day, the first day for improvement. We are going to try to wrap up the article improvement phase by June 15, complete the review period by July 15, and hand out awards by July 20. Please sign up for some articles that you would like to help improve, and get started! Thanks for your participation! Go Phightins! 19:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Camp(2013 film) submission

You mentioned the link in the rejection notice, pointing out what reliable sources are. However, that doesnt explain why imdb and metacritic are reliable sources... particularly since they are used as references on accepted pages elsewhere! For example, the older "Camp(film)" page, itself, includes metacritic in its references section. (and imdb, for that matter). So if it's unreliable as a reference, why isnt it deleted from there? For that matter, I dont understand what is being viewed as unreliable in principle. Is there doubt that the movie exists? If so, what are "approved" references for films existing? I have attempted to copy other, approved, existing pages' references, yet you tell me they are no good. What am I supposed to use as an appropriate reference then? Given the inconsistency of standards being applied, it's starting to seem like there is some kind of bias against giving this file a wikipedia entry.

The first blue link that I clicked on from the decline notice specifically mentions IMDB under a section discussing questionable sources. Basically, the problem is that (like Wikipedia) IMDB's entries can be edited by users without the editorial oversight that you would get with a major magazine, many websites and newspapers. You mention Metacritic and use it in your reference list, but I didn't see any information in the article that came from Metacritic.

To answer some of your other questions: We don't compare one article to another. Some existing articles certainly have poor referencing, and there is an established procedure for dealing with those. That doesn't give a pass to new articles. We're not really concerned about the existence of the movie. The issue is one of notability. In other words, we only write Wikipedia articles on subjects that have received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. As far as appropriate references, coverage in major newspapers and magazines would be a possibility. Things to avoid: sites with user-generated content, most blogs, and almost any source affiliated with the movie itself. Good luck to you! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigo

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Talk:Rodrigo (musician)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rod840 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Made some significant copyedits to the syntax. Will be back to look at the rest of the feedback. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 00:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Talk:Rodrigo (musician)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rod840 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad we're almost done, I hope the clarification I gave about the copyright status of the image is enough.--Rod840 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article, other than that, the rest is assessed.--Rod840 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Traveling today, but will look at it as soon as I can. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work reviewing the article, you did a great job! One last thing. Under the section Controversy, investigation of the accident and initial reaction I added a new paragraph about a 2011 theory regarding his death. Would you read it to make sure it does not need copyediting?--Rod840 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I copyedited the new stuff - just minor fixes. Medically, the 2011 theory seems a little weak to me. I wonder if there are any medical authorities who commented on the theory. If so, that could be included in the article. I also changed the word order of the quote in the quotebox. Your translation was literally correct, but we more commonly use a slightly different word order in English. Great job! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 01:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find opinions from any doctor. That's the latest police theory on the accident. I don't know how solid is it (my knowledge of medicine is pretty basic), but as far as now is the last official word on it. To write that "a new theory surfaced" should be enough not to confuse the reader, making believe that it was the actual cause of the accident. As it is clarified before on the article, the judge determined that it was because he was driving imprudently and under the influence.

Probably at some point we'll get more information or somebody's opinion on that, since as you can read in many sources every year a new theory/story about Rodrigo tends to surface.--Rod840 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good weekend! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Me again. I recently undid a version of the article by another user. The user was requesting citations for the lead and questioned the article, stating that the information was repeated. You can read the full reasons of his request and my reasons to undo them in the talk page. I just wanted to ask you If you could post your opinion about it, since a mediator is always necessary in this matters and the article went through a review.--Rod840 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what happens now that you've posted your response on the talk page. Although the issue wasn't stated 100% clearly, it may be that he wants you to use more summary and less specifics in the lead. If you took out some of the details from the second and fourth paragraphs of the lead, that might make everyone happy. Let's just see where the discussion goes from here. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Vafra (chess engine)

Vafra is a (cloned from Crafty by me) chess engine which can be used with (widely accepted and very popular) ChessBase's Microsoft Windows Fritz chess interface (via Wb2Uci adaptor written by Odd Gunnar Malin) as an UCI chess engine to assist in chess analysis. As (currently) I am (Robert Jurjevic is) the only author (and maintainer) of the cloned version (vafra is Latin for crafty) of the chess engine, Vafra chess engine link is the only direct reference to Vafra on the Internet (there are indirect links such as links to Crafty chess engine and Crafty's original author Professor Robert Hyatt). Wikipedia mentions some top (according to assessed playing strength) chess engines (such as Rybka, Houdini, Stockfish, etc.), but also some other chess engines (such as Crafty, etc.). Chess players (including the top grandmasters such as Magnus Carlsen, Levon Aronian, Vladimir Kramnik, etc.) may benefit (in chess analysis) even from chess engines like Vafra (particularly as Vafra chess engine chess playing style can be tailored by customizing all of its chess position evaluation and chess graph search parameters stored in Vafra chess engine personality files which is all configurable within ChessBase's Microsoft Windows Fritz chess interface. Vafra chess engine may be mentioned in Crafty Wikipedia article (as Vafra is a Crafty clone). Robert Jurjevic (the author of the cloned version of the chess engine) holds a master's degree in fluid mechanics (his master thesis was published in "International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids", Volume 31, Issue 3, pages 601-626, 15 October 1999) and a postgraduate certificate in astronomy and astrophysics. Robert has also been mentioned in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" (6th to 10th, etc. Editions). Robert holds a bachelor's degree in naval architecture and works as a software engineer (with more than 30 years of computer programming experience). Robert Jurjevic is also an amateur chess player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJurjevic (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Economics Project

Hi, EricEnfermero,

I do not want to add the material from my articles into the existing 'Economy of ______' because those articles are bloated with information and I believe that the material from my project would be best presented as it's own article. The simple standard format is necessary for my articles and that makes it incompatible with the existing articles. The information on my article condenses alot of economic information into one small space.

I tried to set up this Wiki project proposal to have my articles create a new Wikimedia project here but I was told to add my articles to normal Wikipedia instead: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I want my format of article to be seen by the public so it can inspire other people to create the same style of article. That's all I want.

What is your advice? Mcnabber091 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you inquired at WikiProject Economics, and I think that is appropriate. I saw that no one has responded. It's tough to advise on this situation, as new articles can't cover the same topics as existing articles. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Damn Kids

Hey EricEnfermero,

I submitted the article 'Damn Kids' for review yesterday. It was declined by you because the sources weren't valid. Can you help me understand exactly what type of source you want? I would like this to get article published.

I'm confused since I've looked at your criteria for sources, and I believe BBC Radio 1 Xtra is a reliable source. Would you need another page? Did you want me to take some other sources out?

Is there anything else wrong with the article?

Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisprovoke (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused,

I received an email that you have responded to me, but I see no messages from you anywhere?

Can you respond within here, I would like to see what you are saying if you are communicating with me.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisprovoke (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't respond to you, but SineBot, a Wikipedia automated program, came along and signed your comments for you. That's probably what the email was about. If you post on a talk page like this one, put four of these ~ symbols (tildes) after your post and it will sign your username, the date and time. That way SineBot doesn't have as much work to do, we'll all know who is talking to who, and you won't get any extra emails about SineBot doing its thing.

I moved this post down to the bottom of my talk page. It was kind of randomly inserted near the top, but not at the top. For organization purposes, we keep new talk page posts on the bottom of the page. As far as the two BBC Radio links, click on them and watch what happens. I think you'll understand what the problem is. :) Once those links work, you may or may not need more sources, depending on whether those links actually cover the subject in depth. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey EricEnfermero,

ok I understand now about the communication issue I was having.

I'm still not sure of what is wrong with those links. The second link, although not immediately noticeable, if you scroll down on the page you can see 'Damn Kids' on the list of artists who had their tracks played by B.Triats on that particular episode. That to me clears Wikipedia's rules of a valid source.

Let me know what I can do to make this article published.

Thanks.174.116.236.245 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For one of the BBC Radio links, it's an episode guide that says the episode can't be found. I do see where the band is listed as playing a track, but remember the comment on my review: we're looking for sources that cover the band in significant detail. Mere mentions on lists like this do not establish notability. The second link is supposed to be a band bio page, but it says that the biography cannot be found. Have they been covered in a newspaper or magazine article that was actually about the band? If not, it's best to hold off on including them in the encyclopedia. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey EricEnfermero,

I have resubmitted the article for Damn Kids. I have not changed anything in the actual article, but instead have added two sources to his references. The two sources are interviews with him, and should be from reliable sources. From the BBC sources, you can see his track was featured on the B.Traits show on BBC Radio 1 Xtra. The bio on BBC is a catch 22 since I need the Wikipedia page in order to get that up. I hope this covers the reliability of him as an established artist. Let me know if there is anything else I should include.Thisisprovoke (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't review the same article twice, just for fairness to the submitter. I wish you luck with the next review though! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Larry Hockett. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Have a good weekend! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!

Hi there EricEnfermero! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of eponymously named diseases (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Coats

Ryu Hyun-jin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decision

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Deaths 2013- Complications and Regular CoD

Hey there. Just wanted to drop a comment. The Board editors have some wording we use to designate certain Causes of Deaths. If a person dies immediately from whatever, in this case a Stroke, then the listing is given as Stroke. However, if a person survives for a day, week, month, years, but later succumbs to the event, it is listed as Complications from Stroke. That is why you will see Traffic Collisions and Complications from Traffic Collisions, etc. It is one way you can tell that there was a struggle involved during the process or an immediate death. Feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. I think I understand your intention. Is the term complications only for CODs that may cause instant death and may also cause slow death? To me, it introduced unnecessary inconsistencies into an article that is already very dynamic, but I at least get where you're coming from now. If we're updating the subject's article right after adding the person to the list, is there a benefit to specifying the timing of the death? I can click on the article to find out, say, whether the person died in ten minutes or ten years - and if I'm a random reader, hopefully I will click on the article. I understand that it is difficult to think outside of long-standing precedent though. It was thoughtful of you to drop me a note. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 02:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Got a response up for you now on my Talk page about the other question. It just takes a while to work in the process. WWGB just about hung me a few times when I came on board until I got the lexicon down. We still have the issues on occasion now, but nowhere near where we were. There is just a set of formats you have to get used to with Politicians, Olympics, etc etc. After you see the same thing for a couple of months, it starts to become old hat. The Death Page was the #3 visited Wiki site last year, so there are usually a bunch of people to help out if you have questions...Wylie, WWGB, Racklever, Derekbullamore are the other big editors out there you will see quite a bit of. Sunnydoo (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. I still think it makes us look amateur to use the term "complications" to mean "slow death", especially on a page that receives so much traffic, but it was kind of you to at least attempt to explain where you are coming from. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work protecting Bob Davidson in the last few hours. Though he completely botched the call (I am a Phillies Phan, so my opinion is a tad biased ), he certainly does not deserve the vulgar criticism that ensued at the game, nor does he deserve crap on his Wikipedia page. Thanks for protecting him, and in turn protecting all living people. Go Phightins! 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Katharine Worth

Dear EricEnfermero, I notice that you declined the article on the academic Katharine Worth. I have added two citations. What will be required to enable this to be accepted as a Wikipedia article? Are references to books acceptable, or does Wikipedia only accept online citations? There are many books, particularly those which she wrote, which indicate her post at the time of publication, for example. Any information would be useful. Thank you, 31.51.1.125 (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)V. Jones.

Sure - in most cases, books are considered reliable sources. If you check out the decline notice that I left you, it should have links that explain things like referencing and reliable sources. Once you feel like the article is adequately sourced, you can add the submission template and have the article reviewed again. Out of fairness, I don't usually re-review articles, but someone will get to it. Good luck to you! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Brayton Purcell - edits

Hi EricEnfermero!

Just saw that you undid my edits. The reason I deleted those was because they are actually not verdicts but court rulings. For the Kananian section, the firm was actually never removed from the case. The attorney, Chris, actually lost his pro hace status instead. Also, the Butler section, is missing some information. There is no verdict for that one because the case is still going on and Brayton Purcell refiled the case.

Let me know how to approach this.

Thanks! Ellgee24 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't realize what your thought process was, as there was no edit summary included with the edit. Good point on the distinction between court rulings and verdicts. I will edit the section heading so as to clear up any potential confusion there; that will be a better solution than removing two paragraphs of sourced and notable information. I'm not too sure what to do with your other concern. I have another reliable source with the quote from the judge that both Andreas individually and the firm collectively had lost their right to practice in the court. I have another source that discusses the dismissed appeal that had been filed after the entire firm had its pro hac vice status revoked. I don't think you're being intentionally deceptive with me, but I think you may have been led to a suboptimal understanding of the events in these cases. Right now, no further action is required, unless you want to work on paring down the attorney bios in the article. Long bios of non-notable employees aren't usually included in organization articles. Thanks for your work! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi EricEnfermero! Yeah, sorry, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and how to even respond to people on here. I was wondering, can we just remove the entire page for now? Is there a way to have it disabled and then possibly reactivate it in the future? Thanks, I tried finding every source I could find to make this page, but I'd like to have the option of having it published in the future now. Ellgee24 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For deletion questions, I would check out WP:DEL and see if that helps. It's not an area that I know a lot about. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 21:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Hi Eric. I'd appreciate you going to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AVavst and endorsing my sock report. Thanks. Regards, --Manway 05:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need additional info. Somehow I've made it this far on WP without visiting WP:SPI. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 06:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just added the YelWD account. Obviously another one. Thanks for the info. Regards, --Manway 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Want a good laugh? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EricEnfermero - Don't worry, the admin will realize it as a retaliatory SPI and close it. No black marks or anything. We're clear on this one. Thought you might get a chuckle out of it. Regards, --Manway 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dang, they deleted it. Wish I would have screenshotted it. It was good. All best. --Manway 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That was entertaining. I saw it, but I passed out last night before I could respond. I guess I can check "appear at WP:SPI" off of my Wiki bucket list. :) EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 11:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anna Dewdney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Lawson

Free Flow Electrophoresis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Good article drive#Recap.
Message added 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Rejection

Eric

You are really wasting my time! If there was published information I wouldn't have bothered to create the page. I work for the Belize Government and the information is based on a physical visit. This is certainly a major disincentive to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerblench (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for creating frustration for you. We definitely put a lot of thought into minimizing wastes of time, for the sake of the user and for the efficient operation of the encyclopedia. With hundreds of submissions in the AFC queue, we don't want to waste the time of any editors or reviewers. That's why we try to make the submission guidelines as explicit as possible. On the main AFC page at WP:AFC, note that the second sentence on the page reads, "If you don't have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea for a new article and some references, you can create one here." References is hyperlinked to provide more information about Wikipedia's referencing guidelines. Even if I were a new editor, that sentence would make it clear to me that Wikipedia wouldn't be able to accommodate the article that you describe. I'm not sure what else we could have done differently for you here, Roger. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Article on Michael Aram

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the copyright nature of the content I used on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Aram and it's similarities to an article armeniapedia. I was asked by Aram's publicist to write articles on both sites. I put up this article as a talk page, then used this article as a basis/template for the Armeniapedia article.

I explained in my authors notes for the Armeniapedia article that I would be using the wikipedia mateirial as a source, assuming that the wikipedia article would go live first as it had been submitted first. 

Unfortunately with the article backlog on wikipedia it ended up being the other way around. Is there anyway I can put the material back up or should I just start from scratch?

Thanks for your time, I'm still pretty new to wikipedia so I don't yet have all the technical rules down, but this is my first real article and I'd like to someday see it posted. Thelandsman7 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me check into this and determine how we can best move forward. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For Priyanka Chopra. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Query on a submission that was declined

Hi, the reference is about an article for Youi Insurance. It was declined on the following basis: Comment: Article relies mostly on sources that are connected to the subject. EricEnfermero Howdy! 07:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC). I researched other articles for other insurance companies who had used similar sources (i.e. news reports, company websites and linked in profiles) so why would this submission be declined? As an example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Direct whose citations are very similar.

What other sources and citatiosn are acceptable for verification?

TrevorDev (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That article, as you point out, has the same referencing problems and non-encyclopedic style. How did it get there? It didn't have to go through the Articles for Creation process. (Note that an editor did identify poor sourcing and tagged the article accordingly in July. It seems that no one has had a chance to add references or, probably more appropriately, to start the article deletion process.) The editor who created it had at least enough experience that he really should have known better than to push the article through. I think that serves as a pretty strong example of the problematic articles that AFC can help us to avoid. When you're working on your AFC submission, focus on the guidelines provided at WP:AFC. It's okay to look at some example articles, but the more important question is whether the article meets those criteria. Better sources may come in the form of books, major magazines and newspapers - especially non-local coverage. See WP:N and WP:RS. I hope this helps. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Recently reviewed article wasn't finished, can you review it again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Coaching_Corps

Johnzhang1 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Johnzhang1

I usually don't review an article twice, out of fairness to you. I notice that a references section is missing. See WP:REFB for help in getting your references to display appropriately. Any reviewer will want to see those.

followed guidelines to get article translated, but still rejected

Recently you rejected my request to have the German article "Walter Veith" translated into English. I followed the wikipedia guidelines to request a translation: "If the English article does not yet exist: you can: create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, explaining or defining the subject of the article in a sentence or two; then immediately tag your stub article with a translation template, as above."

Please explain why you decided to reject this request. Thank you.Earlysda (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)earlysda

The submission doesn't explain or define the subject of the article, at least as I read it. It doesn't tell us who Walter Veith is, so far as I can tell. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Donald N. Bersoff

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IP has been blocked for three months Dusti^*poke* 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)