User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 10

I would appreciate your suggestions for Joseph N McCormack, MD
Hello EricEnfermero, I have been posting questions in the Teahouse and someone mentioned that I might find an editor related to my area of interest and ask for suggestions. Another editor suggested that my (first) article is ready to move from my sandbox to the mainspace and bypass the 'submit for review' process because of the backlog. He has offered to help me with that. However, before I do so, I'd appreciate some suggestions from a content expert simply because I'd rather catch problems before, rather than after, moving the article.

Joseph McCormack was a contemporary of Drs DeLee and Southard. James Burrow, who has written two histories of the AMA, wrote that McCormack was the "most influential political leader of the medical profession in the Progressive Era, or perhaps in the AMA's entire history." I'd appreciate your suggestions on what should be deleted or expanded for clarity. For example, I have stated that McCormack, in 1874, performed the second cesarean section in Kentucky, the first having been performed in 1852. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that readers will make the connection that it was a rare procedure and McCormack was bold to attempt it (and gained fame because of it). I like your writing style for DeLee and Southard and now see that my writing might be too academic. I have pictures from the copyright holder that need to be uploaded and I need help selecting appropriate categories. If you've got the time and inclination to help me, I'd much appreciate it. Drvalsummers (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would love to throw in some suggestions. It may be the middle of the week before I have time to sit down and focus on it though. I do love medical biographies and I'm happy to help you in any way that I can. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are kind to offer to help. I'm sure you will enjoy learning about the McCormacks. I have many concerns about my citations as well. Drvalsummers (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did it! I added the infobox with a photo and moved the article from my sandbox. I hope you'll be one of the first editors to help me improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvalsummers (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello EricEnfermero. Thank you very much for looking at my article and making suggestions. I'm really excited that you noticed so many areas where I can improve the article. I can't say I understand all the Wikipedia lingo, but I hope you'll help me learn.  As you can imagine it's somewhat overwhelming for a newbie to see so many changes in her article.  I hope you'll be patient with me while I learn the Wikipedia formats.  I'm not sure where to start except with your comments on Joseph's son, Arthur.   I hope that in the next week or so  I will be able to write a short article about Arthur McCormack to upload to Wikipedia Then, I will be able to delete many of the sentences in the "family" subheading.  And, I hope you will help me understand the other comments you've made--all of which I accept with appreciation. Drvalsummers (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm absolutely willing to help you with any aspect of your participation on Wikipedia. New article creation seems like it would be a really daunting way to get involved as a new editor, so I applaud your enthusiasm there. You've done a great job. Most new articles don't have such solid sourcing when they are first posted. If you have specific questions about rationales for any changes I made, don't be shy. Most of the changes were very minor, such as "wikilinking" the first use of a term rather than the second.

I spent a little time adding web links to some of your sources so that our readers can easily verify the information supported by your references. When there is no web link to a particular source, we call that an offline source, and it's still perfectly acceptable to use those. When there is an available web link, other editors might come along and add it for you.

I didn't explain my proposed layout changes too well. I was thinking about using my own Sandbox to show you the layout that I was proposing. However, as I'm thinking about it, it's probably not a big enough deal to focus on in these initial stages of a new entry.

Regarding an article on Arthur, I think it's definitely possible that he will meet WP notability guidelines like the general notability guideline, but I think it will probably require more research than Joseph's article did. I could be wrong, but I think that Arthur's reach was probably more at the state level than national or international. Joseph is presumed notable for multiple reasons (leader/important influence in national-level organizations, former member of a US state legislature). If you create an entry for Arthur though, I wouldn't necessarily take his info out of Joseph's entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the publications can be linked to Google Books or HathiTrust, but I couldn't figure out how to do it correctly. Likewise for many of my references. Drvalsummers (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I can add some more when I get some time. If you're interested in trying this yourself, the first part of this link -WP:URL - has some good info on creating links to external sites. It's not an expectation by any means though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading your comments about Joseph McCormack. Quick responses, then I'll ask some questions.  Today, I meant to start an article about Arthur T McCormack in my sandbox but somehow instead I created an article for all the world to see.  I've pretty much added all the content I intend to on that article, but would still appreciate your feedback.  When that article is complete, I can edit and reduce the information in the article about Joseph.  Then again, one of the interesting things about this father/son is how they maintained the public health/medical relationship for so many years. But, isn't that getting into academic writing? The photograph you mentioned is actually a photograph that was taken when the portrait was painted.  I like your photo better, so please tell me how to upload the image  in place of the photo of the portrait from the National Library of Medicine.  I'm at a loss as to what to say about your other suggestions.  I have three file cabinet drawers on information on Joseph McCormack--but I understand the rules about no original research.  The quotations about the quacks is something I'd like to include, but I have no secondary sources to show what happened when McCormack drove the 'quack's out of Kentucky.  I hope you'll be patient with me as I learn the Wikipedia system and figure out what I should/shouldn't include. Drvalsummers (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers -

I think your Arthur T. McCormack entry is going to work out just fine, even if you didn't intend to publish it in what we call "mainspace" (the main part of the encyclopedia) just yet. If there's ever a time where your article subject isn't clearly notable by Wikipedia standards, keeping it in draft form allows you to add sourcing to it slowly and without pressure. When an article is published in mainspace and someone thinks it's not a notable subject, they can nominate it for deletion, at which point the article's notability would be discussed for a period of around a week to determine whether it should be deleted. For this article, I don't think it matters that it's in mainspace because you've found plenty of evidence of broad coverage. I'm just explaining why draftspace is so advantageous as a starting place for each article. (It seems like a terribly rude thing to nominate articles for deletion, but there are obscure WP entries created every day solely for the purposes of advertising or promoting trivial entities, so there has to be a way to thin the encyclopedia of the fluff.)

Great job on this entry. You found more solid references on Arthur than I did when I looked into it. Having a decently lengthy non-paid obituary in The New York Times can be a great indicator that a person has had national or international influence in his or her field. His national organization presidencies (like APHA) are probably also good indicators of his prominence in medicine. It looks like someone added a "maintenance tag" to the article asking for more sources, but personally I think you already have a solid number of sources at this point.

It can be challenging to learn what to include and what not to include. I learned a lot of it by trial and error, as more experienced WP contributors would prune some of the unnecessary stuff from my contributions. It was sometimes hard for me not to take things personally when other editors sliced and diced the contributions that I thought were already very good. Over time it got easier and I learned how to talk things out when another editor made what I thought was an ill-advised change to "my" content.

Original research is an important consideration for sure. We are particularly careful about original research concerning contentious material related to living people, but it's good practice to have reliable sources for just about anything that we add to any entry. I do think you should mention the overlap between the careers of Joseph and Arthur on each one's page, as there are reliable sources documenting that. As a nurse, I particularly enjoyed reading about Arthur's interaction with Mary Breckinridge and the Frontier Nursing Service. That service is well-known in nursing history, and I wonder if there is additional material on Arthur's impact there that could be added (at some point) to Frontier Nursing Service.

As I am thinking over the new image of Joseph, I need to look into a few things. I think the National Library of Medicine image might be in the public domain (free from copyright restrictions), but the image from a published work might be a fair use image (a copyrighted image used only in a limited manner on WP). Fair use images are helpful for locating photos of dead people, but generally we only use those images when there are no available free ones. In other words, I need to do some more checking, but we might not be able to use the photo I suggested.

There are usually a few little tweaks that editors will come along and make to any article, but you've done quality work on two entries now. Job well done. In the next few days I might move the article to Arthur T. McCormack consistent with our usual practice of placing a period after a middle initial. Moving is a simple procedure (simple for people who have done it before :)) but I didn't want you to log back on and think that something major had happened with your entry because you saw a page move notification.

Again, great work. Keep in touch and let me know how I can help! EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Relating articles on Arthur McCormack and Joseph McCormack
Hello EricEnfermero. You have given me a lot to think about. Thank you. Regarding the "overlap" between their careers.... I have some obits written after Arthur's  that write about the sixty year "dynasty" of the father/son. But, where should I include that? Perhaps in the "family" section? Or in the lead paragraph? I did add a bit more about the Frontier Nursing Service and added a new reference. From what I can tell, the Wikipedia article about FNS was written before the publication of Melanie Goan's 2008, 260+ page Mary Breckinridge: The Frontier Nursing Service and Rural Health in Appalachia. Goan doesn't have a lot to say about McCormack. I must admit I haven't read all the book. I bought it to supplement my research on the McCormacks. I don't feel I know enough about the FNS to edit the article. It would probably be a good idea for someone to include the new book in a "Further Reading" section for FNS. I also made several changes in the section on the Kentucky Medical Association because I have the problem of names changes (over the years) from Kentucky State Medical Association to Kentucky Medical Association and Journal of the KMSA and  Kentucky Medical Journal. ' I'd appreciate your comments on how to best handle this. Also, I need some advice on how to name the two articles, especially because there is more than one article for the name 'Joseph McCormack.' Back in his day, men used their initials (e.g. J. N.) rather than their names, so anybody today doing online research needs to search for "J N McCormack" and "Joseph McCormack." I plan to have the article ready to move by the end of the week. I've got to wrap it up and get back to writing my book. I can probably add a 'medical person' box. There is a photo of him online at the University of Louisville Libraries Digital Collections; it shouldn't be difficult for me to get permission to use it. There's another, better photo circulating but I can't find it now even though I've seen it before. I have some more questions, but this is enough for now. Thanks again. Drvalsummers (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Drvalsummers (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to at least mention in Arthur's lead section that he was the son of physician executive Joseph N. McCormack, and you would mention something similar about Arthur in Joseph's lead. You can certainly get into a little more detail later in the entries, especially related to the point where one took over a post from the other.


 * I think that the articles are appropriately named right now. Article titles are usually based on the way that subjects are commonly referred to in reliable sources. I found a lot of sources, like JAMA, that refer to these two subjects by first name, middle initial and last name, so I think we have it right there. First initial and middle initial is the common practice for publications, but we don't title our articles that way unless that's how they're referred to more broadly. (Example: We use Thomas Edison, even though Google Scholar lists tons of publications written by TA Edison.) There is another Joseph McCormack on WP, but there is no other Joseph N. McCormack, so we don't have to add any descriptors to the end of his name when titling the WP entry.


 * Note that Joseph McCormack is a Roman Catholic bishop. I added what's called a hatnote at the top of the bishop's article letting people know that there is also a Joseph N. McCormack. If someone comes to WP looking for your Joseph and they just type in Joseph McCormack, they would get this bishop, but the hatnote lets people know that there is a doctor under Joseph N. (Right now in Arthur's article, the wikilink to Joseph actually leads to the article for the bishop. The idea of Arthur being fathered by a priest brings a little chuckle, but I am going to fix it.) If I'm not explaining this very well, there is a Wikipedia help article on "disambiguation" - which is the process of naming articles so that they are not confused with other articles. You can read it at WP:DAB.


 * I think you're handling the organization naming issue reasonably with the KMA and KMJ. I think it's okay to say that he was secretary of X, which was later renamed Y. The issue gets a little more complicated when wikilinks are involved and you're trying to point the reader to the right link, but it looks like neither the state medical association nor the journal have articles on WP under either of their names. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that for me. I'll put a sentence about father/son in the lead paragraphs on both articles, then I'm finished tweaking them.  I'm going to move Arthur into the mainspace as soon as I figure out how to do it.  You've been exceptionally helpful and supportive. Drvalsummers (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually both articles are already in mainspace. (Arthur's article was the one that you had accidentally published in mainspace but it worked out because the article was excellent already.) It's a pleasure to work with you. I know that you're busy, but if you ever come back and need a hand with anything, don't hesitate to reach out. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing the boxes on my talk page made me feel like I did as a college freshman. C-Class and Low Importance.  I know every person who writes an Wikipedia article feels that his/hers is very important, but I must admit it was somewhat discouraging.  I'd like to hope that Joseph McCormack who did so much to advance public health (at great personal expense) could be better recognized. He might never rise to the top ranks like Lister and Pasteur, but how can I improve the article to show his relevance during his time period? Or, is it just my writing that's the problem? Drvalsummers (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The article rating system has some ridiculous aspects to it, in my opinion. One of those is that WikiProject Medicine (WP:MED) considers entries about individuals (medical biographies) to merit a low importance rating, so our opinions of the subject are moot. Another way to look at this: Your entry got the same importance rating as Joseph Lister. :) On the class rating, most new articles receive the Stub-class or the (appropriately named) Start-class rating. Yours was certainly better than the typical newly published entry, so I think the C-class rating is appropriate. They're not letter grades by any means. There is no A-class used in WP:MED, and B-class articles have usually had a great deal of work put into them by one or more editors to prepare for a Good Article (GA) or Featured Article (FA) review. The GA and FA designations are only awarded after a nomination and review process. In other words, your article is rated almost as highly as a new entry on this subject could have been rated. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. That makes me feel better.  I'm going to quit stressing about these articles and start working on the book.  After posting to you this evening, I received a thanks from Arthur McCormack's grand-daughter for the work I've done.  That's better than a rating from Wikipedia, in a way.  I may return every now and then to tweak the articles.  Please know that I much appreciate your support.  Best wishes, Val Drvalsummers (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have things in perspective. Contributing to WP is something that people do for various reasons, but there isn't a lot of extrinsic reward associated with it, other than maybe the occasional pat on the back from another editor or from a reader who is interested in your subject. Good luck on your book. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suddenly, my uploaded image of Arthur McCormack has disappeared. Can you help me with this? Drvalsummers (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was deleted because there wasn't enough licensing information added when the image was uploaded. I didn't notice the problem when I was looking at the article, but it seems that an editor tried to notify you of this potential copyright problem at User talk:Drvalsummers. An admin deleted the image after several days went by without a response. If you go Arthur's article and click on View History near the top, you can view the edit that removed the deleted image from the article. It may be that you can contact the administrator who deleted the image to ask for clarification. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey.
Hey, did you get to remember me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Even after looking at your user talk page, I do not remember you. I'm sorry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

New York Mets
FYI, I just semi'd New York Mets for 24 hours. This should be helpful in case you were looking to do any editing today other than rvv'ing on that article! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I did have some other things in mind for tonight but that was pretty distracting! I appreciate your help! EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit notes
It seems that you have accused me wrongly. It's not me that correct the "Fade" into "Faded" in the Alan Walker article, but another person.I am here to remind you, thxlys vin cent  (Sthg wrong with my edit? Tell me! ) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No accusations here. As far as I can tell, I reverted that page back to your version after another editor mucked it up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=726337157 your edit] to Blue baby syndrome may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * arteries]], tetralogy of Fallot, persistent truncus arteriosus, tricuspid atresia and total anomalous pulmonary venous return.

Comment from Stringskull
You are a seemingly not very intelligent person refrain from dealting cont until they are done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringskull (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually the way it works is that we don't save content until it is done. Of course it doesn't have to be perfect to be saved, but at that point you have to be open to people helping you by editing the material. In general though, it's not a great idea to add section titles with no corresponding content. People here will help you as much as they can, but that's probably a little less true if you are insulting their intelligence after being warned on your talk page about personal attacks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue
Hi EricEnfermero... I know it's four years old, but can you think of a reasonable explanation for Special:Diff/487777981/488305113, considering the text at http://tobaswritesyourlife.com/?p=1831, which was apparently posted in 2006? Storkk (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really cannot. I would have certainly known better than to violate copyright, so I am scratching my head. I'll look at it further later on today though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look and I'm still puzzled. I was thinking that maybe I mishandled an edit conflict and introduced something from another editor, but there are no edits for several days before or after mine. Looking at the time of the post, I probably should have been asleep (and my spelling/punctuation supports that), but I'm shocked that I would have been out of my mind enough to add copyrighted material. Will definitely take note of this; I have gotten bits of text stuck in my head before and ended up inserting close paraphrasing after reading a source a few times, but nothing to this extent. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of OTRS confidentiality rules, I can't elaborate much... There are some allegations, but there are also reasons to doubt the veracity of those allegations: it is possible that the blog post was not in fact created in 2006, despite appearances. I don't think you should worry about it (I realize that's unsatisfying). Storkk (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Timofey Mozgov
Would you mind removing the section "Los Angeles Lakers (2016-3016)" as well? It was inadvertently restored by your revert. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - just noticed that and removed it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Undelete File:OldRockinChairTom4.jpg
Could you please undelete this image? Marole3 (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have the privileges to delete or undelete images. It looks like the deleting administrator is still active on Wikipedia (even though it was deleted six years ago), so you might contact him. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thank you for taking the initiative to clean up some of the grammar in the Italy national football team article, it is appreciated. :) Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Double check my grammar in regard to team subject/verb agreement. I tend to default to the American style (the [team name] were...) but it seems like that's not the style used in most of the article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft review
Could you take my request to review this draft article, Draft:Production No:2.--106.76.208.16 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at it and made some changes to improve the grammar, but I would not be a good reviewer for the AFC process. I don't edit movie entries very often (and that's especially true within Indian cinema). EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ken Rosenthal
It's absolutely factual though. I've seen much worse "opinions" and "theories." What was added is recorded however. He has repeatedly had to retract statements based on misinformation from "anonymous sources." That is a disregard of fact by a reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.186.0.2 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Appropriate thing to do: Write about these incidents (without undue emphasis on them in the context of his career) when you have reliable sources listed behind them to back up what is being said. We would leave opinions out entirely, unless we can describe and source exactly what was said about him and who said it. We're just careful when we describe people in subjective terms, especially living people. For example, in objective terms, if he gets some of the facts right some of the time, that's not complete disregard of the facts. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Link
User talk:prabhubaskar OK eric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrabhuBaskar (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (talk)  11:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Brentwood secondary College
Mars secondary doesn't exist, however as I go to Brentwood I know that Brentwood actually has a rivalry with Wheelers hill High School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtplant1488 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the unsourced stuff about the Tibetan throat singing that hurt your credibility, I think. From where you are right now, it might be tough to get to a point where you could be taken seriously. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair Point, but search "Mars high School"in Wheelers Hill, Victoria and then search "Wheelers Hill secondary"in Wheelers Hill Victoria. At least give me that correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtplant1488 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it if you change that part back. Even better would be to add a source supporting the information that you want to add. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Stringskull
Tryna throw down sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringskull (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Never. Wikipedia is not ever worth throwing down. Just trying to keep the writing clean. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Diddlebock
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bake McBride
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady
Hi, Eric. I see where you are coming from. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, it has long been the protocol to place any deviations from the given name in quotes in the lead sentence, no matter how obvious it may seem. For example, Steve Jobs and Joe Biden. I feel like the line between what is necessary and what is unnecessary can become an arbitrary line to draw, so it seems easier overall to just include all nicknames in quotes. Wash whites separately (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The protocol is well delineated in the section of the MOS that we just discussed, so we don't have to rely on our recollections of our experiences. If we are talking about ease and potentially arbitrary lines, follow the MOS seems like a no-brainer principle to carry us forward in these situations. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And obviously, we are interpreting the MOS very differently. It says "If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name". Nowhere does it say that a nickname should be omitted in the lead sentence if it's mentioned in the article title. When it says "The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title", it means to include the person's complete name if they chose to go by a middle name, and even provides an example; that first sentence had nothing to do with nicknames.Wash whites separately (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tom really isn't a nickname in this case. It's an abbreviation of the given name Thomas. The MOS sentence isn't ideally worded, but I think the intent was to explain that it's okay to leave out logical stuff like such abbreviations that are already spelled out in the title. I think you are focused on the fact that nicknames get quote marks, and they do, but I think you are overlooking the distinctions between given names, abbreviated forms and nicknames. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Abbreviations count as nicknames. Anything that deviates from your given name(s) is a nickname. See Nickname. Wash whites separately (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I can go with that, rather than wasting any more time. I felt like I had a simple, common-sense solution to some of the opening paragraph situations that you yourself identified as a problem, but unless you are running into this issue with other editors, I may be the only person viewing this as basic common sense. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mihran Kassabian
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Rodney11128
Do I talk to you on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney11128 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can, but if the question is about an edit to an article, you should go to that article, click on Talk near the upper left of the page, then click on New Section and ask your question. (If this is about the article that you created for K.J. Brent, click on these two links to find out why he doesn't meet WP's notability requirements right now: WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG) EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok so it is gonna be deleted cause he has not played in a game yet and my sources were not good? Rodney11128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Playing in an NFL game is the easiest way to meet notability guidelines, because it doesn't look like Brent has received enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. To me, it's not about the sources you put in the article; there are not enough available sources anywhere to say that he gets coverage beyond routine sports reporting. He left South Carolina after getting only a handful of receptions a year, didn't impress enough at Wake Forest to even get drafted, and now is on an NFL practice squad. The article will be deleted unless the PROD is challenged, and even that would likely lead to a separate deletion process called AFD. If we were talking about someone on the active roster who would probably play in a game in the next few weeks, it wouldn't be worth the hassle to pursue deletion. This is clearly a different case though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Brent performed well in the pre season there is a chance that he gets picked up by another team off the raiders Practise squad but I guess I could store the page somewhere until that happens and if that happens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney11128 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
I see that you have the article Nursing assessment on a to-do list on one of you user pages. I did a search of what links to that article and your user page appeared. Just thought I would let you know and if you have ideas for improving what I'm trying to improve, just jump right in and we can make it even better. The Best of Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this note, Barbara. I remember placing a few nursing-specific articles on a user page of mine for planned cleanup, but then I became very interested in writing or expanding biographical entries of nurses and doctors, and somehow I just never came back to that one. I have a bunch of clinical topics on my watchlist, but I have mostly done minor cleanup (caps/punctuation fixes, etc) on those. I will have to peek in on the assessment article, but it seems like it's already a lot better than it was when you got to it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm Lor. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to New Orleans Saints— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lor Talk 00:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lor - My edit to that page today cleaned up obvious vandalism (another editor had changed the name of the Saints to the "Aints"). I know it gets a little confusing when there's a lot of back-and-forth vandalism though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph DeLee
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joseph DeLee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Animalparty -- Animalparty (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

How am I vandalizing the encyclopedia?
Hi Eric,

I notice you've given me a total of three messages regarding "unconstructive" and "disruptive" editing to the encyclopedia on my talk page. However, I've only been editing the "Wikipedia:Sandbox" page (indeed, on the days you issued the warnings, that was the only activity I was engaged in). How is this "unconstructive" or "disruptive"? I'm very curious as to the reasoning here, as I've contributed to Wikipedia under a variety of pseudonyms since 2004, and never once have I been warned for any edit in the Sandbox (indeed, issuing warnings for Sandbox edits contradicts the very purpose of its existence). Looking forward to hearing back from you!

DaveedDiggs (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood your intent. Are you asserting that an editor with 12 years of experience, even off and on, requires a sandbox to test out plain text edits about cat litter and workout routines? EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

DaveedDiggs (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC) I've used the Sandbox as a notepad for 12 years (especially during times when my phone is not working, as is the case now), and I've literally never had an issue before. The Sandbox is constantly changing (literally, several times an hour), so my edits are washed away almost instantaneously. Furthermore, none of my edits are inappropriate, racially-charged/sexually explicit, or contain any sort of private information. The Sandbox is not an area that can be "vandalized," by it's very definition; why is policing it a priority for you? And why are you warning me for something so useless? No content on any webpage is being erased, and in 12 years of using this website, I have never once incurred a warning for anything that's occurred inside the Sandbox. DaveedDiggs (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please consult this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Misuse_of_the_sandbox#Unacceptable_use_of_the_sandbox None of my edits broke any of the policies for the sandbox laid out within Wikipedia's own policies. DaveedDiggs (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really a priority for me to patrol any particular area, but because of using the watchlist, I see certain edits because of having edited those pages previously. Not that big of a deal in the big picture though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This edit and this edit would definitely be considered vandalism. If you need to have something to use when your phone isn't working, get a paper notepad and a pencil or pen. While your edits to the sandbox do not technically constitute vandalism, the other two edits do. So far, you have contributed exactly zero constructive edits to Wikipedia. We would be happy to have you do so, but your track record speaks for itself. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Misclick
Sorry about that. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Joseph DeLee at Good Article nominations
Just letting you know I've left a full review at Talk:Joseph DeLee/GA1. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Richard D. Trentlage
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Death of Irene Garza
Hello! Your submission of Death of Irene Garza at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

you are joking, right?
one sentence is a long passage? whatever! 212.200.65.127 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC) but thanks for the edit anyways. :) 212.200.65.127 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically we just copy-pasted a long sentence from an article, stuck quotation marks around it and called it ours. I thought it was just common sense that we don't do that. Even if that level of sense isn't as common as I thought, I appreciate you being open to the edit. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:85.255.235.20
My warning was for the edit before the one you reverted. Presumably you didn't notice it? My warning should have been level 2 and yours level 3 probably. Eagleash (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, I think it's inappropriate to warn an editor twice since his/her last edit. If we operated that way, we'd have people racking up final warnings before they had a chance to see any of the warnings and desist. Just made sense to remove the most recent of the last two warnings in this case, but I understand what your intent was. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I appreciate your message! I've edited a lot of US sports entries, and this time of year baseball and basketball are in the postseason and football is heating up. Fans get a little overly excited and take it out on Wikipedia, so a lot of these edits just come across my watchlist. Thanks again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!
Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event: Best Wishes, --AddisWang (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
 * 2) Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
 * 3) Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
 * 4) If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
 * 5) Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions.
 * 6) If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Vince Foster
Thanks for undoing my accidental revert! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem! The same thing has happened to me a few times. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)