User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings (again)

It's been a while since I've been here. Sorry for disappearing from Wikipedia like that, but real life ate at all wiki time I had. This left me with virtually no time to edit here. I'll stop in occasionally to help out and perhaps get some baseball stubs to GA at some point, but real life is a time consumer. I wish I could come here more often. Hope all has been well with you :). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sportsguy17: Hey! Good to see you around! Go Phightins! 03:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey bud - It was great to see your name pop up on my watchlist. Real life has to come first, but I hope you stop in when you can. It has been a crazy offseason with all of the transactions, the rumored transactions and the resulting unsourced edits from overzealous fans. :) EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys. I still want to get the 300 stolen bases list to FL. I think it's not that far off, but I'm not 100% sure what's still needed for it to have a chance at passing FLC. Can you guys take a look and tell me? I think 100 triples or another list may be a good point of reference, albeit it's a little bit of apples to oranges. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never been to FLC actually, but I've watchlisted the page and will help out with whatever I can. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So I think I'm pretty close to getting the article to FL status, but I need your help. Can you help me by adding each player's Baseball-Reference profiles to the corresponding column. I'm going to add the years in which they played and then it should be a FL. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vickie's personal life

you will see in a relationship with Kris Benson this is her official and personal facebook page. she is a student at Herzing University as well. https://www.facebook.com/100004286433452/posts/439267869559424/?pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.48.216 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that WP:SELFPUB is an important guideline to look at. Even if it's Vickie Guerrero's official FB page, that's still considered a self-published source and accordingly shouldn't be used to substantiate a claim about another person, especially a relationship. Wait until a reliable source with editorial control (like a newspaper) covers it.

I took out a mention that she is a student at Hamburger University, which just seemed like a silly assertion. When I looked back, I saw that the page said she studied at Herzing, but I couldn't find anything about current studies. Again, probably better to wait on a reliable independent source. If no newspaper or major magazine even mentions this stuff, it's hard to justify putting it in an encyclopedia. There's a lot you can do on WP without worrying about adding sources - like fixing grammar, spelling and punctuation. Relationship info should be pretty strictly sourced though. I hope this helps! EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Minnie Minoso true age

Minnie Minoso true age is November 29, 1922. He stated this fact himself a a baseball card show in Chicago. He was told when he came to America to shave 3 years off his true age to be a better prospect for Major league baseball. If you change it to 1925 it is wrong by 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:D93B:A427:B670:6BBF (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent disruption on your talk page

Sorry, meant to zap his edits with a rollback after I blocked. But he is now blocked with TPA revoked, so you shouldn't have to deal with him. Have a great day. Go Phightins! 03:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No sweat! Have a good one. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thanks for the help on Sharon Ann Hunt. I created the article because she was on a list of highly cited female scientists with no wikipedia page, but I have no background in medicine let alone cardiology so while I can see she is notable I can't quite express what her contribututions are exactly.... Elinruby (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Academics and scientists are tricky; a lot of the notable ones don't have articles, while a bunch of non-notable ones do. It helped me to see the ISI Highly Cited category. Almost everyone in that category should pass notability because of the influence they have in their fields. Feel free to reach out if I can ever help with another situation like this. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing Dispute

JohnRoe76 here...I don't see why you refuse to talk to me directly. You use SineBot to delete these posts I make on your page rather than responding. Please let me know why you don't want to have dialogue.

I didn't know of any dispute and see that we haven't had any editing interaction in ten days. SineBot signs your talk page posts for you if you don't know how or if you forget to; it really doesn't have anything to do with removing material from talk pages. If you have any ongoing concerns, you should raise them on the talk page of the article in question so that there can be community input into your questions. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Biologists

So after almost 2 weeks of being blocked I decided to write 2 articles on biologists: Pablo Visconti and William Jeffery. They meet notability but my grammar is a concern (since that's what alters facts). Can you be so kind to copy edit them for me? Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Misha - I did some copyediting, but I am concerned about the factual issues. I don't have the necessary expertise for these highly technical areas - and I'm at a disadvantage only having access to the abstracts of these studies. Even so, I think some of this is wrong. For example, in the Satoh and Jeffery study, I think the authors were simply reviewing other studies. I don't believe that Jeffery did the original work with those larvae or discovered the Manx gene. Similarly, the last sentence of the Visconti article (about heads and tails) is too vague to be meaningful, but I don't have the expertise to accurately fix it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting. I think @Animalparty: will be of help when it comes to factual accuracy. The last sentence is (in my opinion) miningful solely because it was one of the highly cited. I seen other (more highly cited) works by him, but the concept was a bit different (like, same tadpole study, but much less meaningful, in my opinion, studies). Unfortunately, English is my second language, so don't think that I am trying to POV something or to distort facts in a malicious way.--Mishae (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I know that you are doing this in good faith. By "meaningful", I'm not saying that the notability of the research work in question. It's just the meaning of the sentence - is there enough info in the sentence for a reader to know what is going on? For example, what does "head and tail" really mean? If we are unsure of what it means, it might be better to go with a generic statement like "X is also known for a 2006 study of in vitro fertilization in (kind of animal)." EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In this article it means head or tail of a tadpole, obviously its not coin tossing. --Mishae (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's referring to the heads and tails of sperm, not actual tadpole heads or tails. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I was thinking that it was referencing to the head or tail of a tadpole, since a sperm doesn't actually have either head or tail. Or amphibians are different?--Mishae (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article on sperm refers to a head, a midpiece and a tail. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What section is that? I have scrolled through the whole article didn't found a single mention of a head or tail being mentioned.--Mishae (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First sentence of the body of the article, which is the Anatomy section. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, just found it. Learning something new every day. Pity, I don't know as much about biology as my brother does. Fortunately, people who know less, have more time for writing articles. --Mishae (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Links to Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (& qv. Who's Who)

Hi Eric - thank you for your advice ref "External Links" (which presumably supercedes Wikipedia:Offline sources). In publications such as Burke's Peerage & Baronetage invariably the cross-referencing is so numerous and detailed that to state them all would be confusing - hence previous guidance simply as "External Links". How is it that Wiki references Who's Who in this way, but not Burke's PB? Thanks again. M Mabelina (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "to state them all", but I think the issue is pretty simple. I would not support an external link to Who's Who that was used in the same manner that you've attempted to use this external link. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Anglicanus - this guy just goes on and on - I bow fully to his and others' knowledge of Wikipedia but it seems to me that Anglicanus is on a mission as far as I am concerned. His behaviour is really quite incredible & somewhat eery to be honest, not to mention frustrating. This combative approach is leading nowhere productive (apart from perhaps tickling his fancy). M Mabelina (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of the recent stress has related to Burke's PB. I wonder what would happen if you were able to disengage from adding any Burke's PB-related content for a bit. The encyclopedia and its 4 million articles are begging for other types of contributions - things like copyediting and expansion (with sources other than Burke's PB). You'll run into people on WP who have different approaches, but you can only control your own actions. If you start avoiding this contentious area where you have run afoul of WP guidelines and you still feel hounded at that point, that would tell us more about the nature of the problem. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Walden's Path

Hello Eric. In India, a school is given permission for grades K-12, but students are admitted until 6th or 7th grade since all students will have to take board exam (ICSE or CBSE or SSC board) in 8th grade and hence the school cannot admit new students in higher grades. Few ICSE (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education) schools can admit students for higher grades, who will take ISC Exam (Indian School Certificate) in grades 11th and 12th directly.

Walden's Path is affiliated to CISCE Board which offers ICSE and ISC certifications and has permission for grades K-12, but the school is admitting students for grades 1 through 6. This is true for all schools affiliated to CBSE or ICSE Boards or even Sate boards such s Telangana Secondary School Certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramyakr (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry for the confusion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for watching

Of course, the IP misspelled "grammer" in his edit summary: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Yeah, when they spell it like that, it's a good indication that whatever they're doing, they're probably not fixing grammar. :) EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

my edits

Was my edit OK about his batting avrage Daniela9503 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory on which article this concerns? Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Alston

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walter Alston 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Alston

The article Walter Alston you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Walter Alston for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed my edits

I don't understand why you removed my edits. Please see this article http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2015/01/former-dallas-cowboys-cheerleader-is-now-a-pediatric-urologic-surgeon/ it specifically mentions the start of Operation Happenis and this website http://www.operationhappenis.org is the website....why is that not verifiable?

Sorry - we were writing on each other's pages. The Science Cheerleader website mentions the organization and says it's a charity, but it is only mentioned once and it's in an interview by one of the founders. That's not really independent coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Frisco Paper is working on something. When that publishes will that be good enough? WhitneyWells (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to speculate. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Alston

The article Walter Alston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walter Alston 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Walter Alston

Hello! Your submission of Walter Alston 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) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, EricEnfermero. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Alston

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

H-Index on Google Scholar

Hey, how do you find someone's Google Scholar profile so you can see their H-Index? I can't figure that out, all my options are just the regular search and results. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can only see them when someone has a Google Scholar profile. Most academics won't have profiles, unfortunately, and I don't have a way to check the H-index in those cases. To check for a profile, I go to scholar.google.com and type their name into the search box. If you type in Albert Einstein, for example, at the very top above the article hits, you'll notice that it says User profiles for Albert Einstein and below that is a blue link to his profile, which shows an h-index of 104.

In AfD discussions for academics who have no profile but who have written a number of articles with high citation counts, I have seen editors give a few of those citation counts. Ex: "Keep per impressive citation counts (1032, 975, 885, 764, 457, 350...)" EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I wish there was an easy way to calculate it. I think the other options to check all involve a pay service. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mohammed Ansar

Why do you think it is not important to state that those who have written about or commented about Ansar are pro-Zionists or neo conservatives. Why do you believe their political persuasion has no role on what appear to be nothing more than gossip intended to hurt Ansar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.143.70 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

please discuss this issue further at mohammed ansar talk page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.143.70 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to discuss again. It would only repeat my previous assertion that we should follow one of Wikipedia's major tenets, verifiability. If we can't source it directly and it is a contentious WP:BLP, it doesn't belong. I'm repeating myself already though - and on a very simple topic, no less. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Toby Basner

Hi Eric, Why did you remove my edit on Toby Basner's page in regards to his personal life? I posted that on behalf of his grandparents and himself per their request. Ultimately the information the individual wants to share with the public is what should be written. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slurveball (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slurveball - I moved your comment down to the bottom of my talk page to keep things in order. Wikipedia places importance on verifiability, particularly when it comes to contentious edits about living people. Relationships can be a very contentious area, so we should have reliable sources to confirm those. I looked around online and didn't see any references to her. If their relationship gets covered in a reliable, independent source (like a newspaper or magazine), we can include it. Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, WP subjects don't dictate the content for their articles. I hope this helps. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Golden rule of Wikipedia

One golden rule on Wikipedia is that you don't delete or refactor other editors' comments on talk pages unless they are genuinely egregious, and even then, it would be very wise to report it first to a noticeboard or to an admin. You have been around long enough to know - please consider this an official warning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

After seeing this edit I'll accept that it was an accident, but the usual way in the English speaking world is also to apologise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to you for my misclick, as well as for not apologizing initially. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Heyward article review

I've returned from vacation, and began addressing the comments you left on Jason Heyward. There are also new modifications throughout the article, mainly superficial. Given the amount of time I have, I will do my best, as my replies will not be very quick. My gratitude for the flexibility you have shown. Cheers! Elcid.ruderico (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The initial feedback section you started is now answered, save one point. I wasn't sure of the best way to check for dead links, i.e., if there is a more efficient way than manually opening each page one-by-one. I will continue searching.Elcid.ruderico (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll take a look and begin a section-by-section review. If you go the article's GA review page, there is a GA Toolbox in upper right corner of the page. One of the choices is External Links. That will lead you to any dead links and such. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayan Sadashiv Hosmane

There is no reliable source to verify that Narayan Sadashiv Hosmane is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Zenqueue (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking into that. I thought it was a little strange that I couldn't find a list on the RSC website. To me, the solid H-index obviates the need for the FRSC though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Solid H-index? You need to read this page: The Hirsch index of scholarly output: New measure, ongoing debate. It is not that hard to find researchers who have high H-index but they haven't produced any paradigm shifting papers. Zenqueue (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize it has limitations, but it's a common measure used in AFD discussions. WP:PROF doesn't really say anything about paradigm shifts. We should really take this discussion back to the nomination though. The points you make on my talk page probably won't be seen by the admin that ultimately closes the AFD discussion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this[2] and your insights. There are many not that notable researchers who have been awarded a research grant by the Humboldt Foundation. The AFD page was closed by an admin and the result was keep. Although consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline, I still think that there are many issues with the page, e.g. there is no reliable source to verify that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Many thanks, Zenqueue (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Conyers Farm

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund C. Converse

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tilly Walker

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The images used fall under fair use.

Per section 107 of US Copyright law:

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Is Wikipedia not for research? Is Wikipedia not for profit? Jp10101 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use does apply.

Perhaps you should be educated on US law? It is applicable unless you're making the claim that Wikipedia is not a research or scholarship site and is for profit. Jp10101 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WP has far more to consider than US copyright law. The WP policy on fair use, WP:FUC, is clear. Free images could easily be created of these subjects by anyone who attends baseball games. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Larry Hockett. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikinatic08.
Message added 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Wiggins

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan Wiggins 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman and Richard Madden

You removed my edit and told me to leave a message here if I thought you made a mistake. I've rarely edited on wikipedia before and don't know how to leave sources. All I can say is that is looks really complicated. I just wanted to correct some information.

I just moved your comment to the bottom of my page to keep things in chronological order. Sourcing isn't super difficult (WP:REFB gives a basic explanation) but it takes some practice to get it just right. If you'll point me to the reliable source that supports what you were trying to insert, I'll add it for you. Without that, we don't want to make any relationship-related edits. That's a contentious area that really requires sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Quranism Vandalism

As the Quranism page stands, it is highly inaccurate and vandalized. It is currently in this manner because of the severe vandalism it underwent. I am working in best faith to restore the article to its previous form which is much better than it is now. I am not vandalizing the page or abusing Wikipedia. There is one user repeatedly vandalizing the page and reverting edits. I am working in best faith to restore the old page. Look through the history of the page to see the severe vandalism this page underwent and the horrible quality of the article which is inaccurate, inappropriate, and wholly uncited.

Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of this subject, so I'm unlikely to be a lot of help here. Unless I'm missing something, I haven't edited the article in more than 10 days. That edit was to remove some clear vandalism. I don't know anything about the topic, but I knew that the article shouldn't contain content pasted from the output device entry. I can't find a recent version that was wholly uncited. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ilorin Sallah stampede

Hello Eric,

How are you doing? Firstly, I want to thank you for your contributions on Chlorine gas poisoning, I really appreciates your help. Could you please help with copyedit on the above article? Thanks in anticipation. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Sure - I'll take a look at that one when I get home tonight. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

citation on page: Paul DePodesta

Hello EricEnfermero !

I worked on the page : Paul DePodesta, in the section: Moneyball : Book, film and reality But you wrote on that reference link:

Most hurtful in all that, is that portrait of a guy knowing nothing of "real baseball", while in fact he had played baseball and football several years.

2015 juillet 18 à 21:22‎ EricEnfermero (discussion | contributions)‎ . . (19 767 octets) (+34)‎ . . 

(→‎Moneyball : Book, film and reality: the source doesn't really say anything about what DePodesta found hurtful)

Well, i put a lot of sources prouving that he did'nt like the way he was personified in the book and after that in the film. I did it to help people understand why the character who represents him has a another name and another appearance in the film.

If the problem is only the word "hurtful", if you prefer, i can change it for disapointing or something like that? But the link i gave is good as it contains a lot of sentences accurate to the subject, as it proves that the vision of the book and the film, saying he was a nerd with no real experience of baseball is false, and the text demonstrate that in fact he had several years of experience of playing football and baseball, plus he became scout and then assistant manager scout, before he vas working at Oakland. This text is also talking about the consequence of perceptions and reputations...

I put a whole paragraph demonstating those experiences. So i didnt want to say it again. I tought it was enough clear at that point... I used a lot of diffents references to demonstrate that several person say things about it.

So is it ok if i change the word hurtful for another one like disapointing ?

Thanks ! ;-)

Isa

(Here is the text on the reference link:)

---

"The perception of DePodesta as a cold, dorky, numbers-cruncher was fueled, ironically, by the same beast that made him famous: Michael Lewis’ seminal classic Moneyball. In 2002, of course, DePodesta was still Beane’s right-hand man, and several of the scenes within the book reveal Beane holding court over his staff, with DePodesta hunkered down in a corner of the room, “finding players in his computer.” (A computer that told him Kevin Youkiliswas one of the best prospects in baseball, incidentally.)

Reputation is a huge factor in the public perception of GMs, and so are initial impressions. Make a good one, and you can ride through a lengthy period of decisions that turn out poorly (Brian Sabean). Make a bad one, and it’s almost impossible to recover.

The fact is, much of the non-sabermetric baseball writing crowd had already decided that DePodesta was a nerd, buried in a computer, who knew nothing about “real baseball” when he was hired, and inevitably that was the perception that lasted.

In reality, DePodesta still has just about everything you’d want in a general manager:

1.) Experience. He’s been a GM, was an assistant GM under Beane, worked for the Padres as a special assistant, and worked under John Hart in Cleveland before that. That’s a pretty impressive baseball acumen for a 34-year-old, which brings us to No. 2…

2.) The right age. (...)

3.) He’s played plenty of baseball himself (and perhaps not too much? More on that later). Contrary to the public perception discussed earlier, DePodesta is a very good athlete himself. He played baseball and football at Harvard. That’s plenty enough baseball-playing experience to understand a player’s mentality and to be able to relate to his players, both of which are valuable attributes for a GM.

4.) He’s highly intelligent. (...)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabeau777 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Hardball Times source never mentioned anything about DePodesta's actual perceptions or feelings on how he was treated. Hardball Times has occasionally been questioned as a source on WP, but that's not really the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that we have text describing DePodesta's feelings, but we have no reliable source in that section to back it up. It wouldn't be appropriate to change the wording to disappointing, unless we have a source for it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Ok EricEnfermero, i'll check all the links i have on that subject.

I know i have several links about it, demonstrating he was not happy about the way he was characterized in the book and in the film.

I'll check it tomorrow, now it's around 1h am... Thanks! ;-)

Isabeau777

References

184.161.175.109 (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello  ‎EricEnfermero ,

About page : Paul_DePodesta , section: Moneyball : Book, film and reality.

You were right! It wasn't saying that he was hurtfull... So i removed these expressions:"More than that, DePodesta didn't appreciate" and "Most hurtful in all that".

Now, that 2e paragraph is only facts. Since all the 3e paragraph is showing the differences between the book and the reality, i can't say more in this one, because it would be repetitive. All the things i say in that last sentence, you can verify them in that link (it is on last part of the page). It is also in the links gaven for the 3e paragraph.

So, what do you think of it, now? Thanks for your eyes on it! ;-)

PS: Don't forget i'm a french person, so tell me, if there are errors on my english... ;-) Isabeau777 (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Here it is:

In fact, the book gave to DePodesta a reputation as a cold calculator, a man who always has his head in his computer, choosing players only on numbers's criterias, a guy knowing nothing of "real baseball", while in reality, he had good experiences of it, as he played baseball and football several years while at college and then at Harvard.

References

---

Hi Isabeau777 - I don't have enough time to fully explore this right now, but I will look when I get home tonight. Sometimes subtitles can be tricky; we have to be careful to stick to the facts and not reach subjective conclusions. There may be a problem with "Moneyball: Book, film and reality"; it may be difficult to determine "reality". We can see what is in the book or film, and I see a source that says DePodesta viewed himself differently than others viewed him. However, it may be harder to prove that Moneyball (or DePodesta's reputation) is wrong and DePodesta's view of himself is reality. I need to look into it more, but we might just change that section to Moneyball with no subtitle. I appreciate your communication and I will take a closer look at this tonight (it is just after 5:00 am here). EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello  ‎EricEnfermero, It is true that reality is relative to the point of view of who look at it... ;-) So i removed the expression "and reality" from the title of that section. You were right for that!

But i think it is important to keep "Book and film" in the title of that section. It is me who added those words because i saw the film, and when i looked for more information about it, i was disappointed that there were no section and no information about the book that inspired the film. So i added the information about the book into that section, and into the title of the section.

Wow! You say: "I see a source that says DePodesta viewed himself differently than others viewed him". Well you should add this info to the article! This is really interesting! ;-) And it helps to understand why he didn't approve to have his name in the film...

Me too i appreciate that conversation. I looked at your user page and i see you are a specialist of sports! You made a lot for wikipedia. This is really cool!

So keep on the good work! And thanks! Isabeau777 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits at Corbin Sharun

Thanks for the edits you made on Corbin Sharun. This is my first GA nomination, and I admittedly don't feel fully "prepared" for the process, even having read the criteria and reviewing guide. Do you happen to have any recommended reading material (essays or what not) and/or pointers on the process that might be helpful for a first-timer? ~ Rob^Talk 08:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rob! I'm glad that you're going to venture into GA nominations. I like the GA process because it results in major improvements to articles, but at the same time it's a fairly lightweight process. Definitely look at Wikipedia:Good article help if you haven't yet - particularly the sections for criteria, instructions and help desk. Some of the material there (like a list of mentors) is really aimed at GA reviewers, but I think some of it can be beneficial nonetheless. I wouldn't stress about the nomination though. Even in the worst-case scenario, when a nomination is "quick failed", the nominator can make edits to the entry and renominate it without any waiting period. Usually if you're close to meeting the criteria, you'll get a few days to address any issues that the reviewer identifies. For me, I felt like I learned a lot about the process from diving in to my first couple of nominations.

In your situation, the challenge can be that there isn't as much to say about an early-career athlete as opposed to a 15-year Hall of Fame inductee. One area I was curious about: He spent two years at university, but there really isn't any information about how well he played there. Also, I don't know anything about the CFL, but this source explains why it can be hard for Canadians to make it at QB; even better if you can find a similar explanation at a non-blog source.

There are certainly a lot of editors who have done more nominating and reviewing than I have, but I'm willing to help in any way that I can. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ron Santo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• two weeks following a pitch thrown by the Mets' [[Jack Fisher]]. The [[brushback pitch|beaning]]) [[Bone fracture|fractured]] his cheekbone and ended his consecutive playing streak. When he

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

peer review for Elmer Ernest Southard

Just wanted to let you know I've added some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Elmer Ernest Southard/archive1. Enjoy! --Animalparty! (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review of Salvatore A. Cotillo

Thanks for your useful comments GA review of Salvatore A. Cotillo. Really improved the article. Highly appreciated. - DonCalo (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I could tell that you put in a lot of work before the nomination and I appreciate the fact that you responded so quickly to the feedback. Have a good day. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jason Heyward GA review

I did the corrections related your most recent review on the Jason Heyward article. Thanks for taking it on! Elcid.ruderico (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! I am monitoring from a mobile device now, so I will take a look at it tonight when I get back home, but I expect that we'll be able to pass it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Wiggins

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan Wiggins 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 Bagumba -- Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Wiggins

The article Alan Wiggins you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alan Wiggins for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bagumba -- Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalizing titles

I noticed that you changed Manager to lowercase for "Manager Earl Weaver". Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "Manager" should be capitalized when referring to a person by their title, e.g. "Manager Earl Weaver", but used as a noun it would be lowercase e.g. "the manager, Earl Weaver" or as an adjective "former manager Earl Weaver". See search results for "manager earl weaver" on NewYorkTimes.com for how it's used there. This part of MOS is not a prerequisite for GA, but wanted to discuss this if I do some more copyediting on Wiggins. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. At first I didn't realize those were your copyedits. I wasn't trying to be combative. :) To explain my position a little bit, I interpret the last part of the first bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES as the most significant - "when they can be considered to have become part of the name." Good examples would be President Nixon or General Custer. I can't imagine anyone addressing Earl as "Manager" or "Manager Weaver", so I don't think it's considered to be part of the name. I don't think it really forms a title in the sense of MOS:JOBTITLES any more than Owner Joan Kroc or Second Baseman Alan Wiggins.

With all of that said, I'm pretty easygoing and I'll leave it in whatever form you prefer. It just may be good to clarify this for the WikiProject, because I don't think the uppercase M is commonly used. You have a good point about the NYT usage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I stumbled on the MOS a while ago when I ran across something like "Billy Bean was named the General Manager". I may or may not change it back, but not motivated to start a project discussion to head off more potential reverts. If it happens, so be it. At any rate, it's outside of GA scope.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Houston Chronicle doesnt follow the same MOS. Hint for me to not sweat it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a 25ish-year reader of that very publication, so it's possible that they influenced my perception of this issue. :) I'm going to bed and I still have some more feedback to address, but I'll try to get to that tomorrow. I'll try to finish before you are going to be unavailable, but if that doesn't work out, I'm not in any particular hurry to have this promoted. Thanks for your attention to all of this stuff. The feedback is very helpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Wiggins

The article Alan Wiggins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alan Wiggins 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. —Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, Bagumba. Very helpful, especially in making sure that the facts in the entry were faithful to the cited sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikinatic08 is back

Operating under Special:Contributions/94.197.120.59 right now. I had posted about a completely unrelated sockpuppet and got less than satisfactory results, so not going through all that work again for nothing, just thought I'd let you know as well. Cheers. JesseRafe (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the obsession with boys may have been fleeting this time. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Peterson (psychologist)

Hi. I added some referenced info about research published by Joseph Peterson (psychologist), whose page you created. Can you please double-check that it sounds fair and balanced? I added "(sic)" at one point because the research sounds racist to me, but Wikipedia is not censored and with direct quotes, it should be OK. Maybe one slight problem is that the direct quotes are taken from book reviews, not the research published by Peterson and Lanier, but I am not sure how else to quote it (I thought about rephrasing it, but then I thought it would make Wikipedia sound racist, which I'd like to avoid). However, there are very clear in-line citations related to the book reviews, so perhaps it's OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your additions are fine. If there were any more about race research, I would worry about whether we were placing undue weight on that aspect (but I don't know enough about his career to say) - but as is, I think it's fine. My only suggestion is that I have seen sic placed inside brackets in the past (rather than parentheses) and I think the sic goes inside the quotation marks right after the questionable word. Thanks for adding to this entry. I created this one because I was trying to make sure that all of the APA presidents had an article, but I don't know a lot about Peterson myself. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you interested in the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology? I am trying to create an article on each president, but it's a lot of work (many already have a page though).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll definitely take a look. Thanks for letting me know. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be easier to add a table for the list of past presidents?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for your help with the William Ferguson Reid spelling! Please stay on my watch list. You may not care for bubble tea, but, like most things in Wikipedia, the description is informative. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Feel free to drop me a line if I can help to point you in the right direction on something. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Arnold Mildred Terry

Hi there, although I agree that Bobby Arnold Mildred Terry is likely a candidate for speedy deletion, I did want to draw to your attention that tagging an article 60 seconds after creation is a bit bitey and doesn't really assume good faith. This, of course, doesn't apply to things like adverts or attack pages, but generally giving a new user 10+ minutes is a good rule of thumb. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point and normally strive to follow the same line of thinking, but I lost sight of AGF when I saw at least four unconstructive edits in the ten minutes or so surrounding that page creation - including at least one other ill-conceived new article. I'm pretty easygoing, and I'm fine if we want to give this editor more slack. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You also make a good point, though I'm kind of a stickler when it comes to WP:A1 and WP:A3 per WP:BITE. Now that the window has passed, I'm going to go ahead and revert my own edit, replacing the CSD tag. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)