User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2019

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sul Ross
You are changing all of the old "Sul Ross" references to "Sul Ross State". It is my understanding that the school did not acquire the "State University" designation until the late 1960s. Do you know something I don't know?? Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going off Sul Ross State University, which says "State" came into the name in 1923. If that's wrong, we should change that article accordingly Jweiss11 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. The sources covering the football games don't generally use the "State" element during the 1920s and 1930s, but I have found a lot of articles from that time period referring to the school in general as "Sul Ross State Teachers College", so I guess that's appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're on the topic of common Texas Western / UTEP opponents, please note that North Texas was North Texas State prior to 1988 and their fight name was Eagles prior to 1966. West Texas A&M was West Texas State prior to the early 90s. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears little or no care was taken in identifying contemporaneous names when most of these templates were created. Sometimes I just go with the flow of what's in the template, but increasingly I try to do some independent research and fix things. Slowly, we're getting there. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, some are good. Others need work, particularly the programs that aren't currently FBS.  I was planning to give you a shout regarding Northern Colorado Bears football and Northern Arizona Lumberjacks football.  We should get their name histories laid out and reflected in their team navboxes, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time, I don't have exact date parameters for the evolving names on Northern Colorado/Colorado State-Greeley (often also referred to as Greeley State) or Northern Arizona/Arizona State-Flagstaff. I will put the team navboxes for those two programs on my "to do" list. Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot that I actually did it already for Template:Northern Colorado Bears football navbox. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Revisiting the Sul Ross issue. The university's logo for its sports teams says "Sul Ross Lobos", not "Sul Ross State Lobos". See File:Sul Ross athletics logo.png. Moreover, searches of newspapers.com shows that "Sul Ross Lobos" is the WP:COMMONNAME (by a count of 4-to-1).  Bowling Green is a good analogy. The university is known as Bowling Green State University, but common usage is to drop the "State" when referring to the sports teams as Bowling Green Falcons. Accordingly, we should follow the Kent State Bowling Green precedent and refer to the team as "Sul Ross" in schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we need to rename things like Template:Sul Ross State Lobos football coach navbox and Category:Sul Ross State Lobos and Lady Lobos and subcats accordingly. That is the Kent State precedent? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That was a typo. It's the Bowling Green precedent. Cbl62 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I moved and renamed the cats and templates impacted. Let me know if I missed any. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

reverting an entire edit over capitalization
nest time just change the capitalization issue, don't revert my work. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What your are doing is undermining the cross-article consistency that I and other have established—in some sense reverting our work. We should discuss this before you continue reordering every article you deem to be primarily basketball.  In the meantime, perhaps you can focus on the myriad of basketball-only bio articles that remain mis-formatted? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what I am doing is re-ordering articles about basketball coaches who happened to coach other sports so that the most relevant information sits at the top. Readers aren't going to Phog Allen's article to see his football records, with only a few exceptions, they are going to read about a historic basketball coach. You never like to hear it, but the rules were set by the college football project so the convention (I see no consensus) was set up in a biased way. Having a rigid order of sports for multi-sport coaches (football, then basketball, then baseball) makes less sense from a reader's perspective than having the sport they are known for (football for Zora Clevenger, basketball for Phog Allen, etc.) at the forefront. All the ones I have done today FYI have been coaches in the basketball HOF but no distinction as football coaches, that's cut and dried. Perhaps you can focus on college football only articles since we're making suggestions for what the other should edit? Rikster2 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is Phog Allen's playing career listed before his coaching career then if the most well-known as a coach? Why are the playing sports at Frank Keaney ordered differently from the coaching sports? It's not very well-thought out, is it?  Seems more about anger and spite over someone else with a more global and collaborative view treading into your personal college basketball fiefdom. The reality, despite your delusions about it, is that even though the relevant conventions were indeed set up principally at WP:CFB (because that was the relevant hub with the most traffic), they were done so with multiple sports in mind, basketball certainly included, by editors who had and have concern about more than just college football.  You are the one who has repeatedly balkanized editors into college football guys vs. college basketball guys.  And you are the one between us who initiated demands about what content the other edit—that I clean up your half-baked and unfinished mess with the nested navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about anger, it's about being able to use WP:COMMONSENSE. I can reorder playing sports, that's a great suggestion. I don't see the playing/coaching field placement in the box being a major issue and struggle to understand why you do or why you think moving it would necessarily need to follow emphasizing the sport for which a subject is known. It is humorous to see you complain about someone else thinking Wikipedia is their own fiefdom, though, since that's kind of what you're doing on lots of things (for instance, there appears to be no consensus and definitely is no template documentation saying the sports need to go in the same order every time). I don't doubt that the original intent was pure, but the systemic bias is towards football in the way the run rules were set up. For example, Phog Allen is definitely a basketball figure first and foremost. Amos Alonzo Stagg is a football figure first and foremost (even though he is in the basketball HOF because he had major contributions to the sport). But in the case of Stagg, his primary sport is first because, well, football is always first. So the issue a basketball, baseball or lacrosse figure would experience with the current convention (again, no one has produced a consensus discussion that this was agreed to) is NEVER faced with football figures. So of course if your primary concern is football you don't see an issue. But whatever, Jweiss. I appreciate you don't like change much. Still what, 2 years later, you won't nest a navbox even though that DID go through a consensus discussion (I clean up after YOU on those ALL THE TIME because I know you just won't make those edits). So don't give me a line about how much consistency or consensus matters to you - YOUR opinions of how things should be matter to you. Full stop. I've actually been implementing things I don't personally agree with (like removing the "×" after a championship multiple) in the name of consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, Keaney's playing sports are in the same order as the coaching entries - football, then baseball. He didn't play basketball in college. Or, rather, that sport was not in the article. I'd need to research if he did in fact play the game, then I'd be happy to add it in the same order as the coaching entries Rikster2 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Template:Tusculum Pioneers football coach navbox listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Template:Tusculum Pioneers football coach navbox. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Template:Tusculum Pioneers football coach navbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet?
Jweiss - I archived my talk page today and had a chance to scan through all the old conversations on it. It reminded me that we have had a very positive and cooperative relationship in the past, but for whatever reason (generally difference of opinion on various standards) the past year to 18 months has been aggressive. I want to apologize for being overly aggressive and let you know that I will try hard to be more polite, even in disagreement. I know you are working to build a better encyclopedia and please know that I am also here to try and do the same. I hope that you will accept my apology when I say that I am sorry for anything I have said to offend you. Cheers. Rikster2 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rikster, thanks for reaching out. Yes, let's bury the hatchet.  Happy new year.  May this be a fruitful one for everyone. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Question
Hey JW, since you are the go to on standardization. Who is right on this dispute regarding coach salaries? -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * UCO2009bluejay, the contract field actually isn't something I've spent a lot of time dealing with. What's the nature of the dispute?  Average yearly value of contract versus pay in current year?  I'm not there is much of a standard in place.  Probably makes sense to open a discussion about it somewhere. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Question
Hey, JW, do you have a source for this edit? Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See https://www.newspapers.com/clip/28225680/the_oneonta_star/. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice! I knew Peelle was still the AD there into the 60's, but didn't know an end date for him. This article said that Cappiello was the "acting AD" in '69 (interestingly enough, I think it's the same Cappiello who was recently featured in this recent Buffalo News article, lol). I wasn't aware that Deming was also AD there, too. Nice find! Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1940 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Louis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1940_Texas_Tech_Red_Raiders_football_team check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1940_Texas_Tech_Red_Raiders_football_team?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

College Division
Hey, I really am glad that you created the seasons for the College Division seasons. I have one small issue though, what is your criteria for listing a conference as being part of the CD? For instance in 1964 you have a slot for the Lone Star Conference, but Sam Houston State won (tied for) the NAIA championship that year. I know it wasn't unusual for teams to be in both at times. In any event thanks.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * UCO2009bluejay, thanks for chipping in with the related cleanup on this. The conference/team alignments are going to need some verification. For the most part, I've gone with how things were already categorized; e.g. Category:1958 Lone Star Conference football season, which happens to be your edit! Sam Houston State was also ranked in the 1964 College Division polls.  As I discussed with Cbl62 the other day, it's unclear if and when the Mid-American Conference reclassified from College Division to University Division.  The 1960 Ohio Bobcats football team won the College Division national title, but the 1969 Toledo Rockets football team and subsequent Toledo teams were ranked in the major polls.  Looks like MAC teams were last ranked in the College Division polls in 1961. It appears that Idaho moved between the College and University Divisions in the late 1960s while remaining a Big Sky Conference member throughout—that's messy. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, (on the LSC, I think I followed a previous editor on the LSC to an extent). I noticed the Idaho issue also goes with Northern Illinois. I noticed that the 1977 CFB season, is now a redirect to the D-I page, and the others are now in a dab page. I am not saying this is wrong by any means but I assumed based upon the discussion we had on WT:CFB that the redirects would be warranted.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We could really benefit from having a definitive source indicating when each school was in College Division vs. University Division vs. NAIA. If anyone knows of such a source, please share it.  I will see what I can find by searching Newspapers.com. Cbl62 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on a preliminary review of newspaper coverage from 1956 and 1957, I find nothing referring to a "University Division" vs. "College Division" split for purposes of football. The only references to such a split during these years seem to be in the context of basketball and track tournaments. Absent some reliable sources confirming in these early years (a) that such a split was recognized for purposes of football, and (b) delineating which teams were College/University, I am concerned that we may be engaged in WP:OR.  We really need to find reliable sources for this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This (from 1962) is the earliest item I have found so far showing that there was a formal division of football teams with 140 teams in the University Division and 370 in the College Division. If we could only find a list of the 140. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By 1963, per this report, there were only 120 University Division football programs and 299 college division programs. This means that some 20 teams went from the University to College Division in 1964. With such a high degree of divisional migration from year to year, this emphasizes the need for reliable sources showing who was UD vs. CD from one year to the next. Without such sourcing, we are engaged in guesswork in violation of WP:OR. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By 1966, this account indicates that the number of University Division teams had dipped to 114 -- a drop of 26 teams from the 1962 total. More evidence of significant year-to-year flux. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per this report, the University Division expanded in 1969 from 114 to 118 teams with the addition of Northern Illinois, Idaho, San Diego State, and Pacific. A lot of year-to-year flux. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1970, the University Division remained stable at 118 teams. See here.
 * In 1971, two teams were added to the University Division (Temple and UT-Arlington). See here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1972, two teams were added to the University Division (Tampa and Long Beach State), bringing the total to 121. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The conundrum here is that Long Beach State remained a member of the same conference between 1971 and 1972. So, how do we represent that? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that conference membership was irrelevant to University Division status. The two appear to be apples and oranges, as schools appear to have been elevated to University Division one-by-one rather than as a group conference-by-conference. Cbl62 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See here: "Classifications are not made by conferences . . . and being in the Southern Conference does not automatically make a school be of major standing. Nor does one sport affect another." Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Duffy Daugherty.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Duffy Daugherty.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass TfD of NCAA standings templates
See discusssion at Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Driscoll change
Hello, why did you change the reference display option ?, now you don't see them in 2 columns and it is a more ineffective way of displaying them.Tecmo (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

TCU Horned Frogs
JWeiss, almost done with the Cal Golden Bears....moving on to TCU next.....Looking at TCU's history, they were called AddRan Male & Female College up until 1902. Looks like the Horned Frog mascot was used throughout...….did you want to change article titles for the yearly football teams?.... Pvmoutside (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pvmoutside, looks like TCU was actually known as "AddRan Christian University" from 1889 until taking is current name in 1902. So, it looks like the articles that need name changes are for the 1896 thru 1901 seasons.   What do you think makes sense?  "1896 AddRan Christian Horned Frogs football team"?  I recently did a bunch of work to clean up the schedule tables for the TCU articles up thru 1960.  Some of the early years are still missing schedule tables, and we don't have articles at all for 1911 thru 1913.  Also, it seems the home stadium/location info has to be wrong for the years the school was located in Waco (1895 to 1910). Jweiss11 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AddRan Christian Horned Frogs sounds great.....I read somewhere the Horned Frogs didn't get adopted until 1897, so I guess listing the school football team without the mascot is good for 1896?..Also, I did see the school moved twice before settling in to Fort Worth, so I was going to make those changes when I begin schedules tomorrow...Pvmoutside (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got a question on the 1901 AddRan football team scores...TCU's media guide lists the November 23 Baylor game as 0-36, College Football Data Warehouse lists it as 0–39. Similarly, TCU's media guide lists the other Baylor game as 0-42, and College Football Data Warehouse lists as 9-42. any idea on which is better to go with?....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added two contemporaneous newspaper articles. They both list the score as 39-0. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also -- my searches of contemporaneous newspaper accounts indicate that the school's WP:COMMONNAME was "Add–Ran" and less frequently "Add Ran" rather than the unhypenated and unspaced "AddRan". See, e.g., here, here, here, here. These same sources suggest the common name did not include "Christian". Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar WP:COMMONNAME results in 1900. It's either hyphenated (here, here, here) or spaced (here and here), but not unhyphenated and unspaced. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar in 1899. E.g., here, here, here. Also some spaced "Add Ran" but no unspaced and unhyphenated usage found. Cbl62 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence seems pretty clear, so I went ahead and moved 1901 to 1901 Add–Ran Horned Frogs football team. Unless someone disagrees, the others should be moved similarly. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cbl, seems to have been hyphenated or spaced, but never dashed in those examples. Whatever the prevailing formatting is determined to be, it should be reflected at Texas Christian University, which currently uses only "AddRan". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed on rolling out the prevailing formatting in all applicable locales. The reason for the dash instead of the hyphen is that MOS provides for use of dashes, not hyphens, in such situations. I'd be fine with a hyphen, but I think the MOS folks would end up objecting. Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Dick Clausen and Willis Barnes
Just wanted to make sure that the infos you added in the article with the title Dick Clausen actually refer to this person - the info box was titled "Willis Barnes" and also the categories were refering to Barnes but I suppose that was just a copy/paste error as Willis Barnes has his own article with different (and I suppose correct) data. I now changed the name in the Clausen article to Clausen and hope this is correct. --Proofreader (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was just a copy/paste error. Thanks for catching and fixing it! Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just stumbled across it during maintenance work on the categories. --Proofreader (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

2019 Georgia State Panthers football team
Hello Jweiss11. I'm perplexed by your class assessment of stub for this article. The amount of detail in this article is far greater than the standards established for a stub, and are comparable to those found in Chris Hurd, an article you recently assessed at start. I would have guessed this to be a simple mistake, had you not reverted the earlier assessment. So, given the fact that it was intentional, I would like to know your rationale for this edit. Gulbenk (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gulbenk, I generally make class assessments based only on the prose of an article. This is one is almost all tables thus far.  As for prose, it has two sentences in the lead, one sentence in the "Previous season" section, and four in the "Schedule" section—most of which will become stale once the season actually happens.  Start class would be reasonable.  It's definitely not C class.  Furthermore, I don't think any season article like this should be assessed above Start, no matter how developed the prose is, before the season in question is complete. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jweiss11, thanks for the quick and thoughtful response. I would agree that C class is a much higher standard, and that an article about an upcoming season could not reasonably be expected to achieve that level absent the unfolding of the actual events. However, I would suggest to you that there is valuable information to be found in lists, and references, and that an assessment based solely on prose runs the risk of missing the mark. I'm glad that you agree that start class would be reasonable. As a member of WikiProject Georgia, I've made the class change there. I'll leave WikiProject College Football up to you, as you see best. Gulbenk (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

John Peterson (American football)
I appreciate the clean up that you did on the article. Since Peterson worked for the San Antonio Riders of the World League (which is later rebranded as NFL Europe and then as NFL Europa), shouldn't the code be World League of American Football (WLAF)? "NFL Europe" refers to the league in the late '90s and early 2000s, so it feels misleading to state that he worked in that league. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ole Miss Rebels softball navbox
Template:Ole Miss Rebels softball navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Henry Smither.png
Thanks for uploading File:Henry Smither.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Percy S. Prince, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Morning News ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Percy_S._Prince check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Percy_S._Prince?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lou Little.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lou Little.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Army–Navy Game
In the overly detailed obsessive compulsive department, I was going to clean up the Army yearly football seasons, and noticed some years called the army navy game simply Rivalry, while others actually called it the Army-Navy Game with under no chronological order.....any idea when everyone started calling it the Army-Navy Game, or did it start from the beginning in 1890?....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not sure.  any thoughts here?  Seems like this might be hard to pin down by text searches on Newspapers.com and the like because the proper name of the rivalry is composed of such common words. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Preliminary point -- the schedule charts should never refer to "Rivalry" with a capital "R"; where appropriate is should say "rivalry". With that said, my understanding is that the rivalry was not called the "Army-Navy game" at the outset.  We should be able to do some newspaper research to pin down approximately when that naming convention became common, though I have not the time to do that tonight and will be tied up on work matters tomorrow.  A related issue that has been gnawing at me is that the Army football team itself does not appear to have been commonly referred to as "Army" in the early years.  The more common name in the early years seems to have been "West Point" though this needs some more empirical data.  I've had the latter point on my "to do" list for some time.  Cbl62 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cbl62... Those "Rivalries" were done prior to standardization....i'll move on to another football team then....i'm pretty sure Army (and for that matter Navy) can be edited collectively once you determine what is proper, and most if not all the edits for the 2 schools are minor in nature anyway...Pvmoutside (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are still many instance of mis-capitalized "Rivalry" in the schedule tables. I'm cleaning them up along with other stuff as I encounter them. My rule of thumb for listing the rivalries in the schedule tables is to simply display "rivalry" in cases where the rivalry article in question is titled "X—Y football rivalry" or "X—Y rivalry".  In cases where the rivalry article has a specific proper name, like Little Brown Jug (college football trophy), I display that proper name, e.g. "Little Brown Jug", except in cases where that proper name is anachronistic. For example, on 1902 Michigan Wolverines football team, the Minnesota rivalry displays simply "rivalry" because the term "Little Brown Jug" was not yet in existence. Cbl, I have a couple other historical team name issues I want to discuss with you.  Will follow up on your talk page soon. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss other historical team names. My view on proper name rivalries is that the proper name should only be used for season articles on years when the proper name was actually the common usage.  For example, it would make no sense to refer to the New Mexico State-UTEP game as Battle of I-10 for years before that name came into common usage (in many cases before I-10 was even built).  In such cases, I have tried to clean that up with piping to rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "anachronistic" above. Will get back to you about those other issues. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1951 San Francisco Dons football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1951_San_Francisco_Dons_football_team check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1951_San_Francisco_Dons_football_team?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Davey O'Brien.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Davey O'Brien.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Adam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Student assistant ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Joe_Adam check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Joe_Adam?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:William H. Wood.png
Thanks for uploading File:William H. Wood.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howard Weiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madison ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Howard_Weiss check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Howard_Weiss?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Merrimack Warriors football coach navbox
There is only two active links... do you plan on creating a third (or even fourth) article in the near future? It currently fails our guidelines... which is why it was moved to your user space. Corky 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, working on that at the very moment! Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, I just wanted to make sure!  Corky  15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Kaliena22 and User:Ksks60
Would it be worthwhile to file a sockpuppet investigation for these to users, whom you suspect to be related to each other? TitanSymphony (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not, it would not be worthwhile. It's almost certainly the same person, but they're not trying to subvert Wikipedia.  They simply haven't had a handle on how Wikipedia works, but I've been in contact with them on another platform and am filling them in.  What would be more helpful is some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Challace McMillin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross country ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Challace_McMillin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Challace_McMillin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Post-1932 American Politics notification
ST47 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William M. Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradley High School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/William_M._Moore check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/William_M._Moore?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A Star

 * Lightburst, thanks to you as well! Jweiss11 (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you look this over
Hey JW, I know you frequently overhaul a few articles that have obvious issues, (especially those that I completely overlook because I am usually focused on linking cfb seasons/team seasons in coaching articles. But can you look over my rewrite of sections of the Oklahoma football article. It was recently brought to my attention that a significant portion of the history section had a very serious COPYVIO problem, (and was momentarily up for deletion!) and I tried to paraphrase it as best I could. But I trust your editing skills (both wiki and prose) better than my own. Thanks. PS. I also removed a whole section about the '39 Northwestern team because I found the information dubious.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * UCO2009bluejay, I'll try to take a look at this in the next few days. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Speckman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tailback ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mark_Speckman check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mark_Speckman?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm Simonm223. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keep your debate concentrated on content, and not on what you think of my political motivations. See also WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, you're projecting. You're the one acting rude with your "Lol, No" comment and ""Go away"" edit summary. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been told to stop by an admin at article talk. So stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting what ST47 said. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * told us both to take a step back. Which I was perfectly willing to do. Instead you came back to your user talk and called me rude again. Which is WP:NPA again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've deleted a comment of mine, made rude edit summaries ("Go away"), put spurious a warning template on my talk page, and are now manipulating the chronology of things to reverse the reality of incivility here. ST47 posed questions to me and I'm answering them. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm calling foul again. This was before all of this. So I don't understand this. I think the civility issues were relatively mild, involved both sides, and I'd like to believe that they're behind us. If you're going to insist on leaping at each other's throats, then this is going to end up at WP:AE. Again. ST47 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the civility issues here were mild. Probably could have been handled in place at the Andy Ngo talk page, rather than coming here with a spurious having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too template warning.  I'm confused what Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has to do with any of this. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jweiss, as Andy Ngo is an article related to post-1932 American Politics, a system exists to place restrictions on articles which commonly attract issues and to sanction editors who show a tendency to violate policy on such articles. I believe you've both already received the standard alert about this, but essentially, any uninvolved administrator is permitted to impose topic bans, interaction bans, and other sanctions if needed. WP:AE is one place to request such sanctions or to report violations of them. There was a case on that noticeboard about this article a few weeks ago, which is why I said that it looked like the article was heading there "again". ST47 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's this alert. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions on the Andy Ngo article. I was not aware of the case with Wumbolo.  What I don't see is any party here contravening those sanctions. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Head coaching tables
Hey, JW. I was thinking in regards to the season articles campaign and the links to the head coaches. Do you think it would be a good idea on FBS program head coaches to go ahead and use cfb links, or do you think that it could open Pandora's box and potential overlink issues?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit is what I am referring to.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would avoid that in the head coaching record tables as it produces a lot of redundant links and also make it unclear at a glance which seasons have articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Reflist|30em
Good evening, Why are you removing the the 30em parameter from the Reflist citation template?.Tecmo (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tecmo, it seems like unnecessary code because Reflist defaults to 30em when there are at least 10 citations in the article. With a short list of a citations, the single column looks better. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is when the article doesn't have 10 or more references (most of the time in NFL articles). It makes the reading of the references more inefficient. I would request for you not to keep changing it, when ever the previous editors left the parameter already there in the article, as we are trying to improve the reading experience.Tecmo (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Bill Donovan
I removed today the information you inserted at Bill Donovan (baseball player) asserting that he was also the Georgetown football coach in 1898. While the confusion is understandable, I am now confident that the assertion is incorrect. Per this article, the William Donovan who coached at Georgetown played football at Brown from 1891 to 1895. Baseball player Bill Donovan was born October 13, 1876 and would have been only 14 years old when Brown's football season began in 1891. Also there is no mention of football in the SABR biography of Donovan found here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This website claims they are the same person: http://www.hoyafootball.com/players/coaches.htm.  This from a Brown University encyclopedia suggest it was a "William F. Donovan" who played at Brown. Let me look into this closer. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Brown Univsity link supports the conclusion that we have two different William Donovans at play since the ballplayer's middle name was Edward. I suspect that the hoyafootball.com site (which appears to be a fan site -- it says "not affiliated with Georgetown University") simply made an erroneous assumption that we need to squelch. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another Brown publication indicating that the Brown football player (later Georgetown coach) had the middle name "Fitz". Cbl62 (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And here's a 1905 Brown alumni directory indicating that William Fitz Donovan was then in business in Washington, D.C., not playing major league baseball for the Detroit Tigers. All this evidence seems pretty overwhelming that the Brown football player/Georgetown football coach Wm. Fitz Donovan is not the same person as baseball player Wm. Edward Donovan. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This may an obit for the William F. Donovan we are looking for. The association with Dave Fultz makes sense. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See also: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/196391309/william-fitz-donovan. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks like our guy! Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid confusion with William F. Donovan who seems to be altogether different. Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I created the article for William Fitz Donovan. I wonder if that's how we should name it though per common name conventions.  Perhaps "William Donovan (American football, born 1873)" or "William F. Donovan (American football, born 1873)"? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no preference on naming the new article. Feel free to move as you deem appropriate. I am just glad we were able to get the facts straight.  Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Georgetown coach was commonly known as Bill (I'm not sure, haven't done the research), another possibility would be "Bill Donovan (American football)". Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Veazie
As a newbie here, I'm making some "improvement" edits. If you don't mind (NO is a fine answer) woud you do a quick review of, and comment on, my edits to Wildes Veazie? You seem to be generally active on football pages, and there are several coach pages that REALLY need some improvement, e.g., Chesley Johnston.

Also, am new to talk page stuff, and if I need a slap upside the head for this post, please do so. Buckeye1971 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message and welcome. Your edits on the Veazie article look good.  The only change I made was tp bring the formatting of the dates in the references in line with the rest of article, using the American standard of month-before-day.  Yes, I focus largely here on the biography articles for college coaches.  There are indeed many articles like Chesley Johnston that are bare bones and many articles that still need to be created.  Let me know if you have questions here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Chesley Johnston
Asking review for Chesley Johnston edits. Also see talk for my assumptions.

If it looks good, should "Notabilities" tag be removed? Buckeye1971 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the notability tag and made some other cleanup edits. I found your Boston Globe clipping on Newspapers.com.  Those clippings are readable for anyone, not just those with subscriptions, so the URL to the clipping should be included in the citation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks bunches for your time on the profile. Your edits provide plenty of stuff to review as "comments" on my work. Re: speculation - yeah, I know better.
 * Interesting WRT the Boston Globe clipping. That's the clip I made yesterday. The ref info is sufficient for future (paywall) lookups if needed, but I wonder if the link will be open access when I'm no longer subscribed. [shrug]
 * Also, I found a book that shows Johnston attended Maine State College (non-graduate of class of 1893). Going to add that in. Buckeye1971 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that clips remain publicly visible even after the clipper's subscription expires. There may be more on that Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Source for changes to John Wallace article
Your recent edits to the article for John Wallace (American football) removed details about his collegiate playing career, addded details regarding a high school coaching spot, changed a category regarding his football playing position from end to quarterback, and added a category for people from Rutherford, New Jersey. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in the article to support these changes, nor could I find any sources to support the changes in a Google search. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added some sources from Newspapers.com to the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additions as they flesh out and reference the necessary details. How comprehensive is your Newspapers.com access? Is this a freebie or are you accessing this through the paywall? Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a subscription through the Wikipedia Library: Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2019 Saint Francis Cougars football team
I have been having trouble getting the above article published, so I request your review and comments. This article is about a football team having 20+ years of history, and the article published for the 2019 season is virtually the same as articles published before. I have 3 citations, each to the official USF web site. I don't know know what could be more authoritative than material published by the school itself. Also, almost every fact quoted within this article is present somewhere within the 3 pages cited. I am not familiar with the 2 reviewers who have thus far held up publication. Have the Wiki standards changed or become more specific? I would appreciate your review of this article to let me know what I must/can do to satisfy the review standards. Also, some tags have been attached to the 2018 article for the same team. If you could look at that one too, I would appreciated it. Jlhcpa (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jlhcpa, thanks for the message. Standards here haven't changed, but new articles put through the draft process are going to be held to standards more closely.  You can see that 2018 Saint Francis Cougars football team has been tagged for several issues including sourcing.  Some of the other Saint Francis season articles, like 2017 Saint Francis Cougars football team clearly have the same sourcing issue, but no one has gotten around to flagging them.  Any article on Wikipedia should have some third-party sources.  Can you add some to the 2019 article?  Here's one I found: http://www.journalgazette.net/sports/20190806/naia-preseason-poll-ranks-cougars-no-3. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have serious doubts as to whether NAIA teams warrant season articles. NAIA championship teams (e.g., 2016 and 2017 Saint Francis Cougars football teams) presumably warrant articles, but the 2019 season has not even been played. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is where I disagree with Wikipedia publishing standards. Even NAIA teams can be colorful and storied enough to be worthy of note.  The team covered here, the Saint Francis Cougars, has one of the most successful histories in all of NAIA football.  Their coach is a living legend - he has been head coach for each and every season of Saint Francis Cougars football, a tenure that has resulted in him becoming the NAIA all-time leader in coaching wins.  In addition, Coach Donley is the current wins leader among all active coaches at all levels of collegiate football.  The team is worthy of coverage, having 2 national championships to their credit as well as other appearances in the title game.  I have the pleasure of living close enough that I can see a good share of USF football games in person.  So this is not just a casual article about some no-name team.  USF and Coach Donley are defacto faces of NAIA football in the current era.  So I disagree with Wiki standards that deem this team not worthy of coverage.  Yes, this is an article about a season that has not yet been played.  But you should know with confidence that I will be observing the 2019 Saint Francis Cougars football team, and I will update this article with additional prose as the season unfolds.  This team is expected to compete for another title in the postseason if it matures and the season unfolds as hoped for.  But, I believe some here would call that just another worthless, biased statement.  I'm trying not to get bitter, but I am getting weary of butting heads with the Wiki overlords.Jlhcpa (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no "overlords". Your opinion is as important as any other.  Wikipedia operates based on consensus.  You may want to express your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I stick to what I have said previously. In my years of trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia, I have routinely been shot down by others.  Whether you call them overlords or consensus, the results are the same: one man's passions are another man's "ho hum.....". Somebody(s) somewhere has deemed that the team led by the winningest active coach in all of college football, at any level, 7th winningest coach of all time, is not worthy of publication.  Because I have been able to personally follow Saint Francis Cougar football over the years, I saw them as reasonable subject matter worthy of publication. Criticize the publisher as one not skilled in artfully constructing prose that appeals to your "consensus", or make constructive recommendations about how to bring an article up to your standards; but I strongly disagree with the determination that the subject matter is not worthy.  "Consensus" is just another name for censorship.  References to NAIA football as being "5th tier" is quite condescending in my opinion.  Explain that to those men who have excelled enough to attract post high school athletic scholarships to play "pretender's football" while attending real colleges.  Using your criteria, I would suppose that Clemson and Alabama are the only two college programs truly worthy of mention.  When is the last time that teams like Notre Dame won a national championship?  In the current era, even Notre Dame can't play well against these two SEC teams.  Should we discount their past success because the current team is not a championship caliber team?  I stand by what I have said.  I am not being overly dramatic to say I may have made my last contribution to Wikipedia.  It's no fun watching others repeatedly shoot down my efforts.Jlhcpa (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the 2019 Saint Francis Cougars football team article from draft to the mainspace in light of the sources you've added and long-standings existence of articles for previous Saint Francis Cougars seasons. That being said, many of the Saint Francis seasons articles, starting with 1999 Saint Francis Cougars football team, lack sufficient sourcing and have other major formatting issues.  Kevin Donley is clearly a notable subject.  But his notability alone does not confer notability on each and every Saint Francis football season that he coaches.  Also, there is no article for Saint Francis Cougars football.  It's a redirect to Saint Francis Cougars, the main article for the school's athletic programs.  It would make sense to develop a main article for the football program.  Wikipedia can be frustrating for everyone, but I think you've overreacted a bit to Cbl62's comments here.  The worst teams in Division I tend to get far more coverage than the best teams in the NAIA.  This is a simple fact. But that doesn't mean NAIA teams or even NAIA team seasons necessarily lack notability.  I hope you'll stick around.  I'm happy to help with your efforts.  There are other editors like User:Paulmcdonald, User:UCO2009bluejay User:Corkythehornetfan with strong interests in lower division college football.  They may be available to advise and collaborate as well.  Jweiss11 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I certainly welcome input from any of the noted persons mentioned by you.  I guess the reviewer's approach just rubbed me the wrong way.  Rather than helping me with more constructive efforts, the reviewer's first response is to go for the "DELETE" button.  I did/do take it personally.  I will take your comments under consideration.Jlhcpa (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

August 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (+editathons before and after)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * I see you've decided to topic ban me for my comment "Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here". Before I decide to if I want to appeal, can you tell me if there is a proper place on Wikipedia to discuss such things, e.g. political bias of one or more editor negatively impacting the content of the encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment that was really premature. This topic ban came less than an hour from the request to revert the edit.  I see no record or indication of the editor's refusal to comply.  Further, I can see room for discussion that the statement "Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here" is not a personal attack-who is the person attacked and what part of No personal attacks applies?  If it is truly a personal attack (and I'm not saying that it isn't, just that there is room to discuss), a "topic ban" wouldn't be the solution--first steps are to either ignore or respond politely.  If it's a pattern that becomes disruptive, then we might go to dispute resolution or arbitration.  But that didn't happen.  A topic ban is for when edits to the article have become disruptive (it can also apply to the talk pages) but I find nothing there about a topic ban for what might be considered a personal attack.  I urge you to reconsider this position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for reporting behavorial problems that need admin attention. They don't sound like quite what you're after, but you might take a look at them to get a feeling for what happens there. If you are in fact asking for admin attention/action, those admin noticeboards might be the right place(s). WP:DRN is for specific content disputes, not for sanctioning anybody or discussing behavior. (The specific content dispute here is at Talk:Andy Ngo, and you have just been banned from discussing Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia, so that's a no-go for several reasons. You can't talk about Ngo at AN/ANI either, it would have to be a very general complaint.) Maybe the Village Pump? Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject), either at AN or WP:AE, and discuss in the course of it? That could backfire, mind you. But the advantage would be that you can of course talk about Ngo all you want to in the course of an appeal. OK, I'm out of ideas.
 * , I note your opinion but don't share it. Did you not see Jweiss11 continuing to talk after Doug Weller asked him to strike out the comment, and continuing to dig down? I've placed quite a few topic bans, plenty of them for disruption of talkpages, and as far as I know, they are for all sorts of disruption. You do realize that this is only a very narrow topic ban — from one article subject, and not a hugely famous or much-edited one? I considered a block instead, but blocks leave an unpleasant mark, that I'd hesitate to inflict on a long-term editor with a previously practically clean block log (there is only a short 3RR block from 2012). Bishonen &#124; talk 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure I understand why "continuing to talk" should be counted against me. There are a number of issues there that I was hoping to work out.  I also do not understand the extent of the topic ban.  Aside from the Andy Ngo article itself, what other articles are included? Jweiss11 (talk)
 * "All pages" generally means "all pages". If you have to stop and think about whether a page is covered, it's reasonably safe to decide not to edit that page. And I strongly suggest you read WP:TBAN, linked above, if you don't understand why continuing discussion would be an issue. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarek, editors should be free to ask questions--especially when the editor was invited to ask questions about anything that was unclear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarek, WP:TBAN sheds light on why "continuing to discuss" in general would be an issue? I'm not seeing anything there on that.  Also, it appears that continuing to discuss before the topic ban was implemented is also being counted against me?  Does this TBAN apply to Portland, Oregon?  Doe it apply to User talk:Doug Weller? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Response, JWeiss didn't "dig down" on the offending statement, he "dug down" (as you say) on the content of the article and his view of bias in the editing. I don't see any comment like "Pthtt!  I'm leaving that 'hit-job' comment right where it is" -- instead, I see "Where is the right place to have a discussion on this topic if I can't discuss it here?"-granted I have paraphrased and not actually quoted.  I also don't see a warning to the editor that a topic ban is potentially coming nor any other of the typical steps involved as outlined in WP:NPA.  Yes, we indeed disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * again. Did you look up WP:TBAN as I advised? It's fairly simple: you are not allowed to talk about Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the context of appealing this ban, or of asking for explanation and clarification, as you're doing now. That includes user talkpages. I talked about "continuing to talk" to demonstrate that you had seen, and ignored, Doug's comment. But please don't take the point about being advised to strike out and not complying as a major thing. It wasn't meant to be; I just mentioned it. What you've been topic banned for is your whole aggressive demeanour on Talk:Andy Ngo, with the "Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job" given as an example. And yes, that quote would be an egregious attack on the good faith of those multiple editors, (Don't you believe in indenting?) There's no difficulty in identifying them from the context. I'm going to bed now, please talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, yes, I read WP:TBAN and I indeed saw Doug's comment and I thought he was being rather selective about which comments he thought were worthy of striking. My editing at the Ngo article has brought me into contact with at least one rather hostile editor, who seems to have escaped Doug's admonishments.  At the time (per-TBAN) I simply moved forward continuing to try to resolve this with discussion.  Seems I'm being demerited for "continuing" to discuss even pre-TBAN?  I understand that we all start with an assumption of good faith.  But we know that we have less-than-perfect actors here and that political biases are real.  If one believes one or more articles is being seriously comprised by the political bias of one or more editors, can you talk about that?  If so, where and how? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But I'm not read Ngo's talk page, life's too short to read all the talk pages on my watchlist, and I told you that the conduct of other editors didn't excuse yours. Doug Weller  talk 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a reason why you prioritized your admonishment to me. I think it probably has something to do with why User:6YearsTillRetirement—an editor who only started editing less than two months ago and jumped immediately into contentious waters like WP:ANI—knew to run to your talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well doh! New editor looks at your talk page and sees the recent DS alert I gave you and comes to my talk page. But yet, he's interacted with me before, the first time was here when he was referred to me by another editor. This seems just another example of your failure to accord good faith. Doug Weller  talk  —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Compare also Jweiss11 themselves, who apparently "knew to run", to borrow their personable wording, to Paul McDonald in some off-site venue (E-mail? General canvassing for assistance on IRC? I don't know, as Paul has not replied to this question). Jweiss, it sounds like you figure you have the moral high ground over 6YearsTillRetirement, who appealed to Doug openly on Wikipedia, on Doug's page. That's strange. Transparency is preferred, to put it mildly. As for asking where you can talk about it, I did my best to answer that question as fully and clearly as possible the first time you put it. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks for answering. What I was really getting at with that question is whether there a place on Wikipedia to talk about political bias where I won't be accused of personal attacks? Also, how did you come to involve yourself in this situation? Jweiss11 (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no such place. Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I watch Doug Weller's page. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
 * , it seems your extension of good faith toward me ran out before we even got started. The editor in question performed an utter distortion of the principle of Reliable sources right on your talk page yesterday. That sort of distortion degrades the neutrality and integrity of the encyclopedia.  Does this editor think he's doing something malicious?  I doubt it.  It's still compromising the encyclopedia.  Note also the scare quotes on "mistake" he used to describe honest mistake that I made and for which I apologized.  That's the most obvious failure to assume good faith in this whole episode.  Didn't seem to register for you though. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC}
 * You're right, it didn't register with me. I was watching tv although also idly doing a bit of Wikipedia work. I saw the discussion but wasn't about to enter into it while watching tv. And as you were topic banned and still discussing Ngo, perhaps you should be glad I didn't notice that. Your description of the journal doesn't match our article on it, by the way, but as this is related to Ngo we shouldn't be discussing it. In fact I don't want to carry on any of this discussion, I have other priorities. Doug Weller  talk 15:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer his question. You answered a different question.  That's a classic Straw man response.  Where can I discuss X? You can't discuss Y.  Also, who asked me to look into this and how that was communicated to me is not germane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's not germane, then neither is Jweiss' question about why User:6YearsTillRetirement—an editor who only started editing less than two months ago and jumped immediately into contentious waters like WP:ANI—knew to run to your talk page. As for claims of political bias, all editors have personal viewpoints, and there is no rule against that - hence Bishonen's reply. If someone believes that a particular article fails to meet NPOV and quality standards, the place to open a discussion would be the NPOV Noticeboard or the BLP Noticeboard. Please note that those discussions should also assume good faith - accusing existing editors of "political biases" is unhelpful and non-actionable, whereas stating that a particular passage does not fairly treat the article subject because it ignores what X, Y, and Z reliable sources say, is a place to begin discussion and consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * wow, that's confusing... if A is not germane, then B is not germane? Maybe B isn't germane, but I didn't bring it up.  Why ping me for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments I've been involved with the talk page discussions related to the Andy Ngo article. I have not edited the article itself. I can see much of what Jweiss11 is concerned about. I think the comment used to initiate the tban was not helpful but I also think that the block was too extreme in this case. Jweiss11, I would suggest taking the concerns raised by Doug Weller and, to heart. I totally get your frustration and I think some of the comments made in opposition to your concerns don't improve consensus building. However, it's just always better to stick to the facts/arguments and not assume the motives of other editors. It's easy to do but best to keep in your head. I've been pleased that at least sometimes common ground can be found with the person on the other side of the discussion. While I agree there was less than stellar behavior by other editors it's best just to not say those things. More than once I've typed out a terse reply to someone then decided it was best to skip sending and move on. Bishonen, if Jweiss11 can articulate a different approach to this topic would you consider a short tban or even lifting the tban? This isn't meant to be a punishment and I don't see that Jweiss11 was given much in the way of a warning. If they can make it clear they won't question the motives of editors at the talk page would that be sufficient to lift the tban? If a cool down is needed perhaps lift in a few days. If things don't work out it can always be reinstated. Springee (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bowling Green 1941
I see you removed Bowling Green from the 1941 Midwestern independents template. The Wikipedia article on Bowling Green Falcons football indicates that the Falcons were independent in 1941. Of course, that may be in error. What is your sourcing on this? Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bowling Green article had mixed info about 1941, which I just fixed. The body of the article has them as an OAC member cites the OAC media guide. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See also newest version of the OAC football media guide, page 45: https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/a/j/m13u8u9v60flgg/FBRecordBook2019.pdf. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article also confirms that BG did not resign from the OAC until 1942. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Rod Carter categories
Hi. Why did you change the order of the categories in the Rod Carter page ?. You really put them upside down and that is not the Wikipedia standard.Makers267 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the message. Which Wikipedia standard are you referring to?  There's doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia standard for ordering categories; see MOS:CATORDER.  Many editors simply put them in alphabetical order.  Many NFL bio articles, particularly ones for lesser-known players that haven't been developed much, tend to use the ordering you did on Rod Carter (American football), where the categories are sorted in what I think is a chronological order?  I don't think that makes sense, as it's less intuitive.  I typically order categories for bio articles in a "mostly" alphabetical order, with categories that are more ancillary to the subject's notability at the bottom; e.g. categories about geographical origin, ethnicity, cause of death, and burial.  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League may be a good place to discuss this further and get input from other editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

YGM
&mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Gravier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malone College ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mike_Gravier check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mike_Gravier?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

why redirect a valid, good redlink? i disagree
I see you recently redirected Challis High School to the town Challis, Idaho. Why? It is a National Register of Historic Places-listed place, which was a valid redlink in the corresponding NRHP county list-article. Hey, redlinks are good to keep. The place to develop about the historic high school is at its name, not in the town article.

I truly, sincerely, hope you are not starting some program to march through NRHP redlinks and redirect them to articles that do not cover them. Please say that is not so. --Doncram (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, okay, I started a stub article to replace the redirect. Could you please develop the article?  Or please cooperate in arranging for the stub/redirect to be entirely deleted (because there is no one properly developing the topic now, and it should continue to exist as a redlink linked from several articles, including also the list-article of high schools in Idaho)? --Doncram (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no idea it was National Register of Historic Places-listed place. I was cleaning up the Jeff Choate infobox and saw there was no link for Challis High School.  Jweiss11 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt replay and ping. Okay good that you're not on a NRHP-related campaign.  But it is still wrong/bad in practice, for you to create that redirect to the town.  It is fine for an athlete article (or any other article) to show a redlink.  The state-wide list of high schools did show it as a redlink.  Redlinks are good, they "help Wikipedia grow", they indicate that an article is expected/wanted.  Creating a redirect misleads/thwarts that.  Okay?  I hope you don't mind me explaining this way;  I am not checking your contributions history but am assuming you are relatively new to Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see you are a longtime editor, sorry. But scanning your contributions, i see this redirect by you for Twin Cedars High School, just one edit as you were apparently going through lots of athlete/coach articles. Probably there are more? This redirect presumably because you were "cleaning up" the Ron Randleman athlete or coach article, which you edited just before and after that edit, and which links there. Hey, that is not "cleanup" in my book. Do you feel strongly about that? I don't want to argue unproductively, but, hmm, do you think it would be okay to march through a list-article having a bunch of redlinks (because articles are needed), and just redirect all of them? I happen to spend most of my Wikipedia time on National Register-listed places, in a list-article system having about 20,000 redlinks out of 85,000 total items. I and others would be extremely irked if someone just started creating redirects, confounding the whole process. --Doncram (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Maybe you haven't created very many redirects this way, though, sorry if this may be overkill. But for another example, take Template:Daniel Baker Hillbillies football coach navbox, you wouldn't want someone to redirect the 8 or 10 or so redlinks remaining there, all to Daniel Baker College, right? --Doncram (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly get your point about the value of red links for new article development. On the other hand, there's also value in directing the reader to the most-relevant blue link. For the Ron Randleman infobox, one could link straight to Bussey, Iowa.  However, then when the Twin Cedars High School article gets created, you'd have to circle back and change the link.  Might be more efficient to just create and use a redirect so long as it doesn't thwart the creation of the Twin Cedars High School article.  To give you some perspective on my perspective, I work mostly on college sports articles, particularly coach bio articles.  We have a long-established process there of creating redirects and linking straight to the most specific, "if-and-when Wikipedia-is-more-"complete", end-result target.  Going back to the Ron Randelman article, notice the link to William Penn Statesmen football, a redirect created back in 2010 by User:Paulmcdonald.  We even have templates for other standardized structures like schedule tables that will 1) dynamically link to the most specific available article or redirect and then 2) update those links automatically via bot when new relevant articles are created. See Template:Cfb link.  I certainly don't plan to march through the NRHP list creating redirects for the red-links.  As for your point about Template:Daniel Baker Hillbillies football coach navbox, it's not clear that Elmer Simpson should redirect to Daniel Baker College if it has to redirect somewhere. Perhaps, Simpson had a much more substantial association with some other institution or domain.  There's no other possible article out there that could be created that would need a link to Elmer Simpson in its infobox and would suffer in the meantime from the ambiguous dead-end link.  It's also unlikely that the Daniel Baker College article, even when developed toward GA/FA status, would mention each and every head football coach at the school, whereas an article for a city or town would, when developed, almost certainly mention its high schools. On a related note, I reverted your edit to that Daniel Baker template to restore much-discussed, long-standing, and widely-used standards for that class of templates.  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football would be a good place to discuss that if you have an issue.  As for the high school redirects, are there any other red-linked high schools on the NHRP list?  I'd be happy to flag those, and then in the event they're needed for a college sports article, I could, rather than redirecting, at least stub out the article and sync it with your NRHP efforts. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Question
Okay, JW, here's one for you: Jim Peelle. The sources currently in the article are inconsistent whether the last name should be spelled "Peelle" or "Peele". This one says "Peele", while this one and this one both say "Peelle". FWIW, I have it on fairly good authority off-Wiki that the name should be "Peele" and the stuff from the University archives like this and this would support the one-l spelling. How is the best way to address this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ejgreen77, good catch. Purdue's 1934 yearbook has "Peele" as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I initiate an RM, or just be WP:BOLD and go ahead and try to move it myself? Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * UPI obit also shows "Peele". See here. Cbl62 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cbl, thanks for digging up that UPI obit. I added it to the article.  Ejgreen77, there's a redirect blocking a renaming to Jim Peele, so initiating an RM seems like move.  Don't think this is very controversial, so Requested moves/Technical requests may suffice. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved. Cbl62 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any idea why the talk page is still at the two-l spelling? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Usually, moving the article brings the talk page with it. In any event, talk page now moved. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup
It's completely unprofessional and anti-Wikipedia for those people to bring politics into Wikipedia, and if they can't neutrally work on an article they have to leave. This site hasn't gone thru 20 years of revisions by thousands of people just so it can turn into something as bad as Conservapedia or Urban Dictionary overnight. No, a 12-year editor is not going to get into trouble, either: anyone throws down with me and it'll be taken to Admin, and there, like the first line of my user page says, I always win. Because there are still enough people who care. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

1982 Michigan Wolverines football team
Hi -

I wanted to say a quick "you're welcome." I noticed your thanks to me on this page – I assume because you watch it. It looks like this Rosby Jackson put himself on the page via an IP address (not a registered WP account), and on two other Michigan Wolverines pages. Unfortunately for him, I'm on the Typo Team and he made a typo which put him in my crosshairs. I deleted him from those three pages – and if you see him pop up again, feel free delete his vandalism with extreme prejudice. I even called him a fraud on his Facebook page. (And whaddaya know, he sells used cars.)

I also see that you get the Wikimedia NYC notices – I'm also in the New York City but I only attend those about once a year. I hope to meet you next time.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Tennessee Doctors
Thanks for clearing up the pages. Still not sure what to call the page, for they had several common names, but went with "Docs" with its contrast to "Vols" perhaps being most meaningful today to convey the connection to UT. Would love to know the dates for Rhodes football's Fargason Field too - it seems like multiple fields had the name. The UT Docs most relevant part of football history is probably losing to Lombard in 1924, as Lombard played the Four Horsemen. And Guyon was coaching Union. Though only Ole Miss was probably the best team they played on a regular basis, teams did not want to play them during that winning streak in the early 1920s. Reese at coach in the end v. Neely is neat for me. Cake (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Orphaned non-free image File:T. A. Dwight Jones.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:T. A. Dwight Jones.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

1935 Texas College Steers football team
This is an interesting one. The Ace Mumford bio chart shows the record as 6–1–2. The Black college football national championship shows the record as 9–0–2. The newspaper searches I've turned up reflect only nine games adding up to 8-0-1. You have any leads? Cbl62 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I just added the head coaching record table to the Ace Mumford article the other day, using the NCAA records database (http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch).  You often have to take that website with a grain of salt, particularly on older records.  Hard to come by reliable records data for defunct programs like Jarvis Christian and Bishop.  Many current NAIA programs, like Texas College, don't seem to have great records going back to the early 20th century either.  The NCAA database reports Mumford's career record as 233–85–23, which is what List of college football coaches with 200 wins shows as well as his CFBHOF profile. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the College Football Data Warehouse indicates that Texas College played Arkansas–Pine Bluff, generally known as "Arkansas AM&N" in those days, on September 26, 1935. The score matches your clipped newspaper source. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * any thoughts here? I see you've done a lot of work on HBCU sports, including much of the Black college football national championship article. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're correct that I was the one who adjusted that particular season record on the article to 9–0–2, way back in 2015. In short, I got it from this page: [] (at the bottom of the table on the Wikipedia article, it does credit the College Football Data Warehouse in a more general manner, but that link above will take you directly to the exact page at the CFBDW site concerning the 9–0–2 record that you mention). The longer backstory is that it was originally listed there by someone as being 9–0 but was not sourced. Now, I'm not an especially big fan of uncited facts, so I went ahead and adjusted the team records on that listing to reflect that of the CFBDW site, because 1) it added continuity as to where all these different season records came from, and 2) the CFBDW site simply contained the most comprehensive listing of game scores, online or otherwise (and, sporadically, even cited references when scores from different sources conflicted—something that raised its credibility a good bit in my eyes, especially since other, similar game score listing websites never say where their own scores are generated from). Another big problem with the originally listed season records on that Wikipedia article was that some included postseason games, and some didn't; I included postseason games for all records to improve the continuity for that issue, but I also acknowledge that it kind of muddies things a little bit in early years when most championship selectors named their champs before the postseason...there is no real perfect answer for that. Theduder3210 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the 1947 CIAA standings template. If you have a chance to do templates for the SIAC and MAA we'd be approaching full coverage for black college football in 1947. Also, would you be able to add a footer to the 1947 CIAA and SWAC templates saying something to the effect of "Final rankings from The Pittsburgh Courier using the Dickinson Ratings System. " Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cbl, the CIAA standings are a lot easier to come by because there's a 2015 CIAA media guide available online that lists them. The SIAC and MAA standings are going to have to be pieced together from contemporary sources, I think.  In the case of the MAA, I'm not even sure who are the conference members were in any given year.  There's also the Southeastern Athletic Conference (SEAC). One thing I've long noticed is that for some years (generally following WWII) the CIAA standings in that media guide are in curious order, not a simply by won-loss record.  Seems the CIAA and SIAA were using the Dickinson Ratings to determine their conference standing. See: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39414374/alabama_tribune/. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, at least in the case of CIAA. I've seen contemporary articles showing that Dickinson Ratings were used to determine conference champions.  Presumably because the conferences were very big, had a mix of large and small schools, and not all teams played equally tough schedules. I started Template:1947 SIAC standings but welcome any input you may have. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I feel your frustration over piecing together the 1947 standings. The best single source for 1947's activity would probably be Paul Jones' annual column in Spalding's Official Intercollegiate Football Guide. Of course, issues of that periodical are scarce for most years, but if you can locate a copy for any particular year, it really is the closest thing to a Holy Grail of early black college football with a summary of the previous season, its conference champions, its best games, its best players. I don't recall actual HBCU standings in it really, but Jones summarized things well enough to figure out partial standings. Besides, the main BCFNC selector that is absent for the bulk of the BCFNC Wikipedia article is Jones' own Champion Aggregation of All Conferences—which ends up leaving the Pittsburgh Courier's top picks largely unchallenged by anyone between 1921 and World War II. Theduder3210 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Duder. Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks in lead
Nothing wrong with linking the city and state; just don't link "United States". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mvcg66b3r, yes, there is something wrong with. It's a classic overlinking. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , You've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and you just now started editing TV station articles. There are thousands of those and you would have to change every single one of them to get what you want. Anyway, it's just in the lead paragraph, not in the body. There's nothing in the Manual of Style that says you can't link both the city and the state. Perhaps we should take this to WikiProject Talk:Television Stations? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a TV station-specific issue. It applies to other articles, particularly ones that mentioned a city, state in lead, like articles for college and universities.  Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is the place to take this issue, although it's been discussed there before.  Happy to discuss more there. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Linking like this: Fresno, California creates a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Instead, link like this: Fresno, California, and the (very) few readers who don't know what California, or want to know more about California, can click through to the California article from the Fresno article. EEng 10:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as User:EEng says, overlinking like this is unhelpful. Who would you be doing it for? --The Huhsz (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * two others have weighted in here against linking both city and state. Shall we move forward with removing those links or do you want to discuss further at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , See here Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wilberforce / Central State
Thinking about trying to sort out the history of Wilberforce / Central State. You mentioned there was at least one year when both fielded separate teams. Do you have a source for that? Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in 1947 there were two teams, Wilberforce State, coached by Gaston F. Lewis, and Wilberforce, coached by Dwight Fisher. See: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39466279/the_tribune/. Been planning to create an article for Fisher, as he also coached at Alabama A&M (1937–1940), Alcorn State (1948–1956), and Bishop (1957–1973). Jweiss11 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Undid my edits for no reason
Why did you undo my edits when it’s not even 2020 yet on coaches/managers pages? TheBigMan720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was good reason. I understand that it is December 22, 2019, but these coaches all presently hold those positions. As a convention, we go by season year, not calendar year, when denoting tenures.  Removing those fields is inconsistent with the current position fields in the infobox and other parts of the articles. 18:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay but on MLB player and coaches pages other editors deleted the "2020-present" on their pages. TheBigMan720 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of someone removing 2020-present on Gabe Kapler's page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigMan720 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make much sense to me on baseball either. Nothing magical happens on New Year's Eve. I'm happy to open a discussion about this later this evening and loop everyone in. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dutch Clark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central High School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dutch_Clark check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dutch_Clark?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles you are topic banned from


There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See also a complaint about your editing of the Quillette page at WP:Arbitration enforcement. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The complaint about you at WP:AE has now been closed with no action, though several admins expressed concern about your editing. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A yule log for you!

 * Thanks for the good wishes. Same to you and yours! Jweiss11 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Gladsome Editing!

 * Happy holidays and best wishes to you as well! Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edward Leonard King.png
Thanks for uploading File:Edward Leonard King.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)