Talk:Walter M. Digges

Sourcing
please stop reinstating unsourced and poorly-sourced material in this biography. Take a read of WP:BURDEN and past discussions at WP:RSN regarding sites like billion graves and find a grave. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

- repinging. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

From the Cyclopedia
"He was elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1917 and re-elected three additional terms, serving until tendering his resignation in 1934. He was majority floor leader of the Maryland State Senate for several years and was elected and was elected president of that body in 1931 and again in 1933." Posting it here because Sotush removed it from the article after requesting quotes from the source. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was requesting quotes and page numbers. You provided neither. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhhhhh.. that is a quote. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I realise that. Where is it in the source, where is the page number and what about fixing all the other problems that still remain and which, really, you should have got to grips with by now? Is there something fundamental about citing stuff that you do not understand? - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the version of Volume 45 of the Cyclopedia at archive.org, Diggs does not even get a mention. I presume that the volume numbering needs to be fixed in some way - see here. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, he does get a mention but it is nothing to do with the quote. He is mentioned in passing in connection with someone else, with whom he was in a law partnership until 1923. since has in the last few minutes removed some stuff from the article due to them apparently misreading this source, I am now thinking that we need to remove everything for which this source is used pending some serious clarification. - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Billion Graves
Billion graves is no different to findagrave, ie: it is user-generated content. The latter has been deemed unreliable at WP:RSN, therefore the former should be treated in the same way.

It has also for a long time been considered trivial and potentially privacy-invading to name non-notable children. I know it still goes on but that doesn't mean it is right. There is nothing to be gained in this article by naming them, so why do it? - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's quite normal to include information on children amd family. That's why we do it here. A photo of the gravesite and tombstone is a good source for burial info, wherever it may be hosted. If you dosagree you are welcome to take it to the approproate noticeboard. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It has already been to appropriate noticeboards, ie: RSN. We don't do it. Look, if you're not prepared to learn from your mistakes here and elsewhere - many highlighted on your talk page - then you're going to be more of a hindrance than a help to the project. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Billion Graves claimed a death date of 15 October but the obituary now cited says 5 October. Perhaps it is a typographical mistake in the obituary but since we can't actually see the dates on the gravestone at the BG page, I'm more inclined to do what we should always do, ie: follow a source that is likely to actually be reliable and not some user-generated crap on a website that anyone can edit. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep adding the wrong date and it is uncited. Whcih "obituary"? Please provide a full quote and proper cotation at least. If you search you will quickly discover that your "reliable source" is mistaken. You've created a huge and tome consumong disruption here ans have added a lot of misinformation I've had to correct repeatedly. This is juat the latest example. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , will you please stop repeatedly doing crap like this. Read what I said above, read what you were told today by others at the Teahouse, and remember that the source I am citing is one that you used first and so, presumably, read in full. A Bar Association obituary trumps a user-generated crowdsourced website. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sitush. I can see the whole of the grave in the image (you need to make it full screen) and it does indeed say October 15th. That's not conclusive, of course, but it does seem more likely the error is in the written obituary. Deb (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I didn't realise that could be done, probably because I've never had any interest in an unreliable source! Still, per the comments below and at the Teahouse, it isn't really an option, I'm afraid. Just maybe there is some way to squeeze it into a footnote, simply to stop people arguing about it in future, but RS trumps open wikis etc every time. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Snippet views
As I try to clean up this mess I am repeatedly hitting snippet views from Google Books. I know that GBooks presents different content in different parts of the world but I am wondering in this case if the material added is also in snippet view at the article creator's location. Eg: we cite "Transactions of the ... Annual Meeting of the Maryland State Bar https://books.google.com/books?id=KMU8AAAAIAAJ Maryland State Bar Association - 1935", which looks likely to be an obituary and probably could be used for much more of the tagged material in the article ... but it wasn't, hence my thoughts re: snippet views being used. Similarly, there is a citation for a Johns Hopkins journal that lacks even the article title, volume number etc and that also would be typical of a snippet view.

Put simply, we don't usually use such views because they lack context etc. If you can't see a source in full, you need to find an alternative or find a better version of the source. WP:RX can sometimes be helpful for that. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've found a full version of the Transactions I mentioned in my opening comment to this section - see here. Obit is pp. 28-29, with another short mention on p. 11-12. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

District Court
I know little of the US legal system. Is the 7th District Court mentioned in the article United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Maryland District Court, or something else? I note that the Maryland District Court says it came into being in 1971 as a replacement for a bunch of other things. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear from your editing that you don't have a grasp of the subject matter. I would suggest trying to work on something you're more familiar with. For example,I made some very basic suggestions for one of your articles per wp:mos and wp:lead noting that the o£ening paragraphs should actually say what the subject is, why it's important and explain the basics about it in summary form. You're just making a mess here and causing problems. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do what? I'm not the one who is clueless here! And you're the one who wrote 7th District Court. - Sitush (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was correct before you came along. You are a one man wrecking ball. I haven't come across a bigger nuisance and edit summaries such as "fuck off" when I am repeatedly fixing your errors are wholly unwarranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked you to fuck off because I had given you a few days to sort this out and it was still a complete mess, then when I turned up intending to spend an hour or so fixing that mess you decided to stick your oar in again, causing edit conflicts and making it difficult for me to build things up as they should be. When you have got a few GAs, FAs and a 100k edits or so under your belt, and you understand how to cite and to apply WP:MOS, then I might be prepared to take some criticism off you. I am seriously thinking that I need to check every article you have created because this one was appalling. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And, like I said, it was you who added the District Court thing, so now you're even misrepresenting what you have done, let alone what the sources say. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * READDED after you had removed it along with much else. Adding lots of useless and nettlesome tags. None of it constructive. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By all means please post some links. Let's have a look at these GAs and FAs of yours. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Talking bollocks again? James Tod is pretty much all me. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected
Okay, there is far too much back and forth on this article, so I've protected it for 24 hours. please enumerate the problems in the article (if any still remain), please listen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * None, apart the the tags for page numbers that have been there since I first began correcting the issues. I suggest you ask FloridaArmy because they're the creator - literally, from the first edit - of all the mess that has gone on. See above sections. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is, in your view, the death date of October 5, 1934 correct? That seems to be one thing that's been argued over here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is verifiable using a reliable source, which is cited and which FloridaArmy actually used as a source for other info here when they created the article. As the "Billion Graves" section above notes, FloridaArmy had used a crowdsourced website for the death: it not only showed a different typed date but also didn't show the relevant part of the alleged headstone. I am aware that 13 days from death to burial (5th to 18th) is probably quite a long time but while the Bar Association obituary might have missed off the "1", it is equally if not more likely that the Billion Graves contributor added the "1". We have to work off WP:RS and since Billion Graves is not reliable, we can't say something like "date of death is uncertain; some sources say 5th, some say 15th".
 * FloridaArmy knows this - after repeatedly reverting that and all sorts of other things here, they asked the question at the Teahouse overnight (UK time) and were told there that BG should not be used. Yet they still continued to mess around with this article after that.


 * Honestly, this is a CIR and OWN thing, not something where the content is actually under any sort of valid dispute. I left them to it for a few days and making initial attempts to sort it out; they only returned when I returned yesterday (similarly, they only returned at an article you have corrected today when I went there, despite someone asking them to fix the copyright issue four days ago.). - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll wait for to respond here before unprotecting. FloridaArmy, I cannot emphasise this enough - assume good faith that Sitush is trying to help you, otherwise I fear this will go to WP:ANI where things will get unpleasant. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  17:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * may not realize that headstones often have incorrect dates on them. They were usually put up some time later, after the family got around to choosing a design and paying for it and after the monumental mason did the work and, in many cases, gave it to a lesser stonecutter to add the dates. Birth dates on headstones are more likely to be wrong (people misremembered, in their grief wrote it down wrong, or even dissembled for some reason) but death dates are surprisingly often wrong. This is one reason Find-a-Grave and the like are dubious sources; they're going by the grave inscription. I can't see the law journal obituary, the link goes to a Johns Hopkins database, or I would have done something about the two cites to it with different page numbers. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, headstones are problematic but FloridaArmy had this explained to them at the Teahouse by other people hours before their last series of taggings. The database url seems to be some temporarily generated thing related to the cloud. If you go to this page and select "Browse Transactions (1896-1991)" at bottom right, you should get the root directory listing for the journals. Select "1935", then the sole pdf that is returned as a result. If you can think of a better way to link it then that would be a bonus but, in any event, just let me know what the problem may be that you see with the existing cites and I'll try to respond to it. (I downloaded the PDF, so I can email it if you want. FA has also seen it, per their use of it in the very first few edits to this then-new article.) - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you mean the supposed titles in the cites? The earlier pages should have the title "Report of the Executive Council". It got lost among all of the shenanigans overnight. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would help, yes, but thanks, I was able to follow those instructions. The obituary also attests to his having been President of the State Bar Association when he died. I didn't find the customs appointment in the obituary. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Customs post isn't in the obituary. It was first cited at article creation - see here - to one of the two massively misrepresented sources and later amended. Somewhere around 0300-0400 UTC, when I was getting all sorts of edit conflicts and repeated poor changes, it ended up being cited to the obit. A valid source was then found and the obit should have been removed. To be honest, there were that many angst-y edits going on that I think it would be wise to review every cite now. As I say above, I'd walked away from this for a few days deliberately to allow FA a chance to sort out the problems; they didn't bother until I returned and then created even more problems. I could've had the thing sorted out in an hour or so, including finding the sources, if it wasn't for that. Perhaps I should have walked away yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The presidency is already in the article, btw, and the law journal does mention the naval post of p. 39. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)