User talk:Larry Hockett/Archive 13

Padres SB record
Nice work sprucing up Alan Wiggins for an FA run. Was there a specific reason you removed that Gene Richards held the Padres single-season SB record that Wiggins broke in 1983?—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually going back over your GA review feedback and noticed that you mentioned relying a little less on things that were only published on stats sites. I may have overdone it there though! I have to run out for now, but I'll put that back in later this weekend. I'd love any feedback on things that stick out to you. I don't have a great eye for details sometimes, so I'm trying to look at things like reference formatting and such. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of cherry picking stats from a stat site, but when the record is already mentioned in an RS article, it seems relevant to mention the previous record holder, even if that is from a stat site. I'm sure an offline source, like from the The San Diego Union-Tribune, would mention Richards. No firm commitment, but I'll try to take a look at the article at some point.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sent Email
Dear Eric: I could not figure out how to use this before so I sent an email. Now that I figured it out I am letting you know about the email. My bio is under Carl O Helvie,  and my email is carlhelvie@cos.net  I look forward to a respose to my email. My best Carl -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos124 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I responded to your email before I saw this. If you have questions about the email, you can ask them here. I appreciate you making the effort to reach out here on my user talk page. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Horace Smithy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
I have just realized, I have already reverted the user with IP address 74.12.122.27 4 times on a single article, but his edits are clearly vandalism, so I'm not sure if the 3 revert rule applies... Is reverting vandalism exempt from this rule? Academic Ninja (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, see WP:3RRNO. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the link!

Hazel-Ann Regis Vandalism
I am taking a break from this, can you take over? Academic Ninja (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bedtime for me, but someone will eventually look at the AIV report or the EW report or the RPP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to keep this under control until then. Academic Ninja (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Information and Guidelines
Dear Eric: Thank you for your message and information. Now that I know how it should not be a problem to use the talk function. I do not understand a lot about independent coverage. I thought it was similar to documentation that I do when presenting information in my books but I must be wrong. Also, for clarification I have never written anything about myself or anyone else on Wikipedia--I thought that was forbidden. I considered being a user when I retired from academia but decided it was more complex and took more time to learn how to do it right than I could give with other responsibilities. I did discover the history function and followed the discussion when I was notified by Wikipedia that some wanted to remove my bio but there was disagreement and it was left. This was at the same time as a friend who is one of the top 40 spiritual leaders in the world and is internationally known was also being considered for removal. Other than that and my use of the content I know little about Wikipedia or how it works. So I look forward to guidance about what would improve my bio. Best, Carl Carlos124 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that you have written about yourself, but just that the current WP entry about you is based on things written by you. What we want is for the article to be mostly based on things that other people have written about you and your work. At a glance, that seems like it would be the easiest way to improve your WP entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eric:In your email you said you would link me to guidelines for appropriate sourcing that would help me understand what is needed. Once I have time to do this am I to send the sourcing to you on the talk page? Thanks, Carl Carlos124Carlos124 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The best place to start would be WP:COISELF. If there are errors that we can correct (and verify with reliable sources), it should be as easy as you leaving a message on the talk page of the article (Talk:Carl O. Helvie). It seems like you have posted there before, but I'm not sure if your current concerns are the same as the ones posted all that time ago. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the material cited. I do not understand the first article about using someone to list but the second is helpful. In your message did you mean adding to my listing or correcting the current lusting or both that should be put on my talk page. I will also probably send one example to make sure I understand before I put anything on my talk page. Thank you. Carl Carlos124 Carlos124 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Carlos124 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to link you to WP:COISELF, the section that discourages writing about yourself, family, or friends. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Kirk Cousins edit
Technically it is true. He is a free agent. NFL says it, he says it. FlashGaming (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit didn't leave any kind of source indicating that anyone said it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

O Canada
Hi. I noticed you've edited O Canada before on the Spanish wiki, and if you could, please translate and change the lyrics as they've officially been changed from "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command". Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it for sure, but I'm tied up with a few other things. It's kind of a weird construction in Spanish, so I want to take the time to verify it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, that was the work of stray fat fingers on a mobile. Shyamal (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! I figured as much. Same thing happens to me. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Content making
Dear sir Please explain me how to format d content of Wikipedia because I want to write our school history in wiki so your thoughts are appreciated

My email niyazimi@gmail.com Niyazimi (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have already begun the process of making content contributions to Wikipedia. The process of formatting an article is more complex than just editing an article, so my best advice is to stick around and edit for a few months before you begin to think about creating a new article. I would be especially concerned because it appears to me that English might not be your first language. You might consider going to WP:AAU, where there is an adoption program in which you can receive mentoring from an experienced user. Good luck. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Learning about rollbacks
Eric: I tried to start balancing a highly biased page targeting functional medicine. Could you provide perspective on your roll back? FYI: The first sentence that I contradicted has a dead reference link. Is it considered ok to delete it? Kenneth
 * It just created a major inconsistency within the article, since the opening sentence describes the field as belonging to alternative medicine and the last sentence in the opening paragraph would say that this isn't correct. Rather than leaving this apparent contradiction unclarified, it's better to go to Talk:Functional medicine and discuss proposed changes to the wording. Doing it this way will allow all of the editors involved in/interested in this entry to put in their two cents. FYI, if you go to any article and click on View History, you can see the edit summaries left with each edit; those usually clarify why an editor is making a particular edit. WP:WEIGHT may be helpful to you as you formulate a discussion grounded in WP policies and conventions. I am not sure what you mean by the first sentence that you contradicted. Usually we try to archive links with something like the Wayback Machine rather than having to frequently delete dead links. I know that you don't know this yet, but when you ask a question on someone's user talk page and then you follow it up with other edits to their talk page, it can create what's known as an edit conflict; you might consider waiting on a response before asking other questions to avoid this, especially if you know a particular user is online and likely to respond right away. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok Thanks!

Disruptive editor
Hi. I just reverted a vabdalizing edit to the Photic sneeze reflex article by User:RandolphWerscht. I see in the user's talk page that he's been warned about this before, including by yourself. I suspect it's time this user account lose editing privileges, but I don't know where to start, and I'm stuck to my phone for the next several days. I'm hoping you may be able to initiate the process. Thanks. ☽Dziban303 »»  Talk☾  22:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I just added a warning to his user talk page. We look at blocks as preventive rather than punitive measures, so I think the admins would be unlikely to block in this situation. He does have some history of doing this, but since this was one edit a few hours ago and he hasn't been around before that in a couple of months, doing anything more aggressive might just escalate the situation. When a user gets past four warnings within a month, that's usually when I report it. I'll keep my eye out for further disruption on that page though. Thanks again! EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi
I responded to your comments on the featured article nomination of the Alex Owumi article several weeks ago. Could you please get back to me on those, because I have fixed the issues you pointed out? If there are no longer any issues, feel free to support the nomination. TempleM (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. Since I just reviewed the prose and pointed out some big things that stood out to me, I need to go back and look in more detail at the rest of the article this weekend. One thing I noticed offhand - starting at reference #97, there are several refs with wikilinks to the London Lions disambiguation page. I have a script that highlights links to dab pages in yellow, so I'm surprised that I missed that before. I hope my feedback helps, but I am not sure how heavily it will influence anything. I'm an FAC newbie; my own first nomination was just archived this week after attracting very little attention for six weeks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate


Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

World Series Games additions reverted
Hello. Yesterday I made additions to World Series games that had no commentaries to them. They are as follows; 1925 World Series, 1930 World Series, games 1-4, 1931 World Series, 1933 World Series, 1934 World Series, games 3-7, 1940 World Series, games 1-6, and the 1942 World Series,games 2,3,4, a total of 36 additions. An editor by the name of Dorsetonian reverted all of them yesterday and now they are blank again. He took issue that I added statements that weren't in the retrosheet play by play if you go to his talk page. Actually I did use the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia Ninth edition copyright 1993 for those additions, I changed the wording on the additions. Can I use that as my source? Here are the page #s: 1925 WS:2706,1930 WS:2711,1931 WS:2712, 1933 WS:2714,1934 WS:2715, 1940 WS:2721,1942 WS:2723. Two hours of work wasted. I feel those games should have a commentary about them. Can you help me have those additions put back? I have contacted you before, with good results. See what you can do. I appreciate it and have a great day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're willing to discuss these issues, but I think you had the right idea by discussing the issue with the involved editor. He's giving you some terrific advice so far, especially about the tone of your additions. We are an encyclopedia and that means that we're different than a sports magazine or say an ESPN broadcast. One of those differences is that we are very heavy on facts and references - but very light on opinions or non-neutral adjectives (areas where other sports journalism outlets can be more generous). One of the best ways to improve your tone would be to avoid adjectives or other modifiers (good, great, easy, big, only, just, etc.) whenever you can. An encyclopedia lays out the verifiable facts and lets the reader make those other conclusions.
 * One thing I notice is that you didn't add references to any of these edits, but you've been around long enough to start figuring out that part (see WP:REFB). Don't ever do two hours of work and leave no references; that's an easy way to get a lot of work reverted. I also notice that your edits seem a little rushed at times. Take the first several edits to 1930 World Series yesterday; most of those edits contained a fairly big mistake ("the Athletics belted Rhem" - hitters belt home runs, but they don't belt pitchers - but even belting home runs is bad use of baseball jargon for an encyclopedia; "only five hits in Game 1 in different innings off Grimes" - did they get five hits in five innings? I'm not sure what you're saying here; "Hallahan breezed..." - pitching an MLB shutout is almost never a breeze and we should stick to the facts; "Jimmy Dyke's error" - there is no player named Jimmy Dyke, so your apostrophe is misplaced). You make some simple spelling errors in the other entries as well. All of us make mistakes, and I even made a couple of doozies today, but when it seems like a pattern, people will naturally take your edits less seriously.
 * The other thing I notice is that you told User:Dorsetonian "I understand and get it" but then you went and added some more unsourced commentary to ALCS and NLCS articles... and then you came to me and asked me if I thought you were really right the first time. Do you "get it" or do you still disagree with him? Right now your words and actions are inconsistent. User:Dorsetonian seems like a very nice guy, and that's a good thing, because this type of behavior might cause some other editors to get pretty cranky with you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to yesterdays request World Series additions
Hello and good day. Yes, you are right, I shot myself in the foot yesterday and I apologize and I am not going to make any more additions no matter what subject because I don't know how to source my additions. With baseball, I should just stick with editing statistical data,i.e. linescore errors, batting averages, ERAs, etc, because it can be proven with Baseball Reference or other sources at the bottom of the page. With the World Series games with no commentaries, maybe I should leave a request on the talk page of the World Series I requested and maybe they can be filled in with a source? There are good Wikipedia editors out there that can do a better job than I did, that's for sure. Every World Series game has a story, and there should be something about the 36 games with nothing that I believe should be mentioned. I just thought I was doing a good thing, which I have done with other World Series games in the past, but again were unsourced. Should I do that with the talk pages? Or go to WikiProjects: Baseball. Thank you and have a great day and thanks for your advice.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are sticking with cut-and-dry factual corrections to statistics, there should be no need to use article talk pages or WikiProject pages much. If other editors perceive some of your edits as unhelpful or unencyclopedic but you plan to use talk pages to ask them to make those very kinds of edits, you will still run into frustration from your fellow editors. I don't see your edits as shooting yourself in the foot; it has more to do with figuring out how you can best contribute to Wikipedia. It's just really important to listen to people's feedback here, especially when it is coming from more than one source, and I'm not sure you sound ready to do that yet. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Formal heads up
... that I mentioned you at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Traveling home today but will chime in if needed when I can. Sounds like you’ve covered the issues well. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Chattahucci Gang
The "Chattahucci Gang" user is a sock of User:Jack Gaines, a longterm wiki vandal who has recently taken a shine to antagonizing me and vandalizing Alan Jackson articles. Please do not handle with kid gloves -- this guy needs a hard block up the ass now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Dalida
Can you help me adding the semi protection to Dalida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DalidaEditor (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think page protection is appropriate here. I only see one recent contested edit from an IP address and I think it could have been a mistake. The biggest problem: this is an article that requires constant cleanup for non-neutral tone. It is also heavily edited by people with poor English grammar and spelling, but these problems come mostly from registered accounts, so protection is not likely to help. Can you tell me more about your concerns? EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent Revert
Not quite a mistake, but I won't reinstill the warning. After making 6 disruptive edits, a level 2 warning does not make sense as the most recent warning. I can understand your intuition about taking action only after additional edits have been made. However, a level 4 warning makes it explicit that such disruptive editing is not appropriate and will not be endlessly permitted. Rather than removing ClueBot's warning, I added an additional message. See WP:NOTHERE. Also, I made sure to include "Articles: Baseball (ball), Beetroot" to inform which articles I was referring to. --JustBerry (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point and appreciate your message. I noticed that this happened soon after the IP was free from a block, though I don't think it was within 24 hours. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These were all after the block and within the last 24 hours: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. --JustBerry (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. Sorry... what I meant was that in Twinkle there is an ARV choice that mentions vandalism within one day of the release of a block, but I think the IP had been unblocked for at least a couple of days. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a Twinkle ARV reporting option relates to warning a user. The warnings are to appropriately advise the user away from disruptive editing. Regarding ARV reporting, though, reporting to AIV has no such criteria that requires that the reported vandalism must occur within one day of the release of a block if an IP has been previously blocked. If there is a clear WP:NOTHERE-like pattern of disruptive editing, AIV can be helpful in countering such disruption. I'm not sure if we're on the same page. --JustBerry (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just mentioning something that I noticed about the situation, but you're right that it's not related to the warning that would be issued. I appreciate the information about AIV. I usually don't bug anyone unless the user has vandalized after four warnings within the month. Often I've found that they go away before that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Waiting until four warnings certainly makes sense. It just doesn't always make sense to increment a warning level 1 to a warning level 2 after 6 or so disruptive edits (not that you did that). Glad we could talk about this. --JustBerry (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Gil Hodges
I see you edited Wikipedia page listing mlb players who went straight to majors without having played in minors. I don't know how to do this. Could you please add Gil Hodges to the list?
 * Done. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Denny McLain Career Statistics additions
Good evening. Can you add the following to his stats line, after IP, Hits(H)1646, Runs(R)778, Earned runs(ER)711. Source:Baseball Reference. Note, I also put this request at Wikiprojects:Baseball. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:EC96:D668:7EFF:2FD9 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally I'm not too big on adding things to statistics sections. If you look at some of baseball's best articles on WP, a lot of them don't even have statistics lines, choosing instead to explain the most significant stats in the prose. With that said, I won't oppose it if someone at WT:BASEBALL decides to add to that line. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

98.200.14.0/24
I recommend taking this to WP:SPI since it involves sockpuppetry, no one ended up blocking it, and a bot removed the WP:AIV report as stale. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was glad to see that the SPI was reopened. This guy sure has some persistence. My instinct is to revert all of these obvious sock edits on sight, even if they aren’t each obviously disruptive... but not all of the active editors to baseball-related pages share that opinion, so I am not necessarily helping the situation right now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to propose a community ban for the editor. If (s)he is banned, all of his/her edits get reverted on site per policy. I have literally reverted the reversion of vandalism by a certain banned editor and then rereverted it when I realized what the edit was, and such is completely appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Tarick Salmaci
Sorry about that. I was in the process of restoring the corrections you made, but we edit conflicted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the edit conflict! I try to be aware of the fact that people may be making a series of edits and to give them some time, but I must have gotten overzealous. Thanks for watching out for the BLP aspects. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit conflict was on me. I could've removed the unsourced content and kept your copyedits in a single edit, but I realized that after I had already reverted the IP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI - Usage of WP:BLPPRIMARY
Hello Eric. I just wanted to drop a note that I understand your good faith edit at Robert Sears (physician). Admin reverted your edit (I did not ask him to) but I wanted to add a little information to help in future editing decisions of this type. The following is offered in good faith to help you improve your edits. I hope you will receive this helpful advice in the cooperative spirit in which it is given.

The policy you referenced, WP:BLPPRIMARY, is a cautionary policy, not a proscriptive one. The section is subtitled "Avoid misuse of primary sources" [emphasis added] and begins with the sentence "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." I highlight these two items to make clear that primary sources are not forbidden in BLP articles, but must be used very carefully.

The next sentence in the policy probably is the source of your good-faith logic for removing the citation but that sentence must be read carefully and completely. It says: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." and in this case I think maybe you missed the key phrase "to support assertions about a living person". My usage of the citation does not support any assertions about the Mr. Sears, but rather it supports the assertion that the Medical Board of California filed an Accusation. It is a verifiable fact that a legal document was created, filed, and published. It was the history and content of the document that the citation was supporting, not any assertion about the person named in the document.

The previous text which I replaced only discussed one of the three charges filed and was therefore POV and needed to be expanded on. When stating "Mr. A has been charged with X, Y, and Z" there is no more accurate and reliable source than the actual legal filing. Newspaper articles often summarize such charges for the sake of focusing an article on a specific issue, as was the case here.

Finally, for specific assertions about Sears I made a separate edit using a separate source which discussed not only the legal charges but also interviewed his peers showing both pro and con opinions by those peers, which I believe is about as WP:NPOV "balanced" as an editor can get here.

Thank you for taking the time to make WP a better encyclopedia and thank you for reading these comments. 172.88.134.103 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I can go with that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Miguel Cabrera 2018 stats revert.
Hello and good day. Go to Miguel Cabrera's page, go to 2018. Where it says... He finished the season with a .301 batting average, I changed .301 to .299, yet my revert wasn't accepted. Baseball Reference has his BA at .299 and they are up to date and reliable. And I would use that as a source. See what you can do. Have a good week.2601:581:8500:949C:58C:356:57CA:693D (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (hitting .301 as of the 12th but .299 after the game on the 13th per the BR game log), but I wasn’t involved in this edit. I’m still at the airport coming back from vacation. The editor reverted you because the inline source (which is wrong) said .301. If you leave a message for the editor involved, it should be fairly easy for you to explain to him. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Frederick Robin
Hello. I noticed you keep taking my edits off of wikipedia. I know Frederick Robin personally and the information I added is 100% accurate. Please explain to me why you are taking my edits off and please tell me what to do to get them on there properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Robin (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you know him personally, it's probably better to let someone else add that stuff. See WP:COI for why we don't typically write about subjects that we have close connections to. On top of all that, I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO, so he's best left completely out of the encyclopedia until that time. Thanks for your understanding. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Mo Vaughn edit error
Yes, you are right. Where it says Looking for a comeback in 2003, put by itself in New York Mets paragraph. My mistake.Thanks.2601:581:8500:949C:C502:A1AF:94EE:671A (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you saw that. I would have fixed it myself but was editing from a mobile device and things like cut-and-paste are not very practical. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you put it back when you have a chance? If there was no source tag, I would do it myself. Just looks out of place. Thank you2601:581:8500:949C:C502:A1AF:94EE:671A (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Sorry! I misunderstood the situation but I think I fixed it. I was surprised that this entry of a fairly popular player from the 2000s was so neglected. The information about the 2003 season was sourced with a URL that led to a 2002 article, so I cleaned that section up at least. :) EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits
My edits are entirely true and you still remove them. Why do you do this? Currymuncher4000 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Same here. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can go to the article and click on View History to see the edit summaries corresponding to the edits I made. I even left you little blue links to MOS:COMMA so you can look at the guideline that calls for commas after MDY dates and city-state combinations. It’s straightforward. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m adding valuable information regarding the Memorial band. I plan on adding UIL events as well as accplisments the band has had. Why won’t you let me? TruthfulCooper (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See advice above re: View History. That’s the best place to learn the rationales for why multiple editors are telling you that your edits are a bit inappropriate. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Bro stop removing my edits they are true!!! User:GBPackers27
 * No, man, no. People are leaving you edit summaries for why your edits are just plain bad. Are you not seeing those? Or is it just not sinking in? EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
For rolling back those IP edits. I was just about to report them, and now they're blocked. Thanks again!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 3 socks being blocked today, all vandalising this page. I believe it will continue. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt)  (talk to me) 07:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

American women in WWII
Hi. Sorry to disturb you, but there are some things I'm not understanding.
 * 1) Why is my edit on "american women in WWII" being undone, while I don't find mistakes in what I'm doing? PS you undid some sort of bot which had undone my edit, but the bot undid YOUR edit too.
 * 2) You blanked my talk page because that message was wrong, am I right? 95.253.203.9 (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you understand. The edit should not have been reverted and you should not have been warned. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Can I disturb you for another problem? In the page List of Latin phrases (O) I found a link that points to Love Conquers All (disambiguation), but the last one is only a redirect to the "real" disambiguation page, which is simply called "Love Conquers All". So I thought it would have been a good idea to fix the link. But a registered user is undoing my edit. I already asked him his reasons, but he didn't answer, so I'm still thinking I'm right. Please explain me my mistake, or otherwise could you contact him? 95.253.203.9 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the editor hasn't edited since you made the talk page inquiry. Without a better understanding of the situation, I wouldn't take that as implying that you're right. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually he edited the page after my first request. However I'm not asking you a moral opinion on this! I just asked if there is an official rule about disambiguation pages, so I thought that maybe you were aware of it and you could answer me if I was wrong and, otherwise (without the existence of any rule), he should have been automatically wrong. But -of course- I'm not in a hurry. I'll wait for his answer. Thank you. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation page
Hi, I saw you reverted all my edits to the aforementioned page deeming them as vandalism of sorts. In the talk section of such page I've made out some points on why the current status of the page is completely not encyclopedic and biased.

I'm new to wikipedia thus I don't know how to proceed, as I wish the page to become as neutral as possible and, while I did cut some parts because I found the citations to be insufficient, I also added material with proper citations (it actually was a lot of work).

How do you suggest me to proceed? Should I report each paragraph for which the citations are insufficient? May I add and modify the page while adding proper citations?
 * I made one edit to that page as far as I can tell. That edit restored the “disputed” tag that you had added but that a rapid-fire vandal had removed without explanation. It looks like a bit reverted some of your other additions. Let me know if I am missing something. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Article feedback
Hey Eric, can you check out this author's article here and give him/her feedback. I am telling you this since you are a member of the WikiProject for Crime and Criminal Biography and the author of the article wants feedback from users who belong to that particular Wikiproject. Thanks JC7V -constructive zone  17:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I’m happy to take a look in the next few days. I believe I saw something on TV about this incident not too long ago. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename currently stuck
Hi there EricEnfermero. You recently requested a username change to the name "Larry Hockett". The rename process appears to have gotten stuck on the English Wikipedia, as seen here. The issue is currently being tracked at T201314. We're working on getting the rename jobs unstuck so you will be able to access your account again.

Sorry for the inconvenience. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, rename issue has been resolved now. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both of you - both for the talk page notification and for bringing this to the attention of the right personnel. Thanks again! Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... sorry for the unexpected ten-day WikiBreak. I had no idea it would've taken them this long! (Normally it only takes one or two days at most) Glad to see you're able to edit again! — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 00:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I went to orientation for grad school, so I have been busy getting things in order for the coming semester. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Autism Speaks
die mad about it larry

sincerely, an actual autistic person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliflower (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not mad, Olliflower. There's just a certain way we have to phrase things for encyclopedic purposes. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Relay Ball
Hey can you save and edit Relay Ball it’s a fun game idea to play ZanerGT (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you know, I will not. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A category spelling mistake
Hi. I found a mistake in a category name, but nobody noticed my alert. Some days have passed, so I decided to contact you, because you know for sure who can fix the mistake (or maybe you can do it yourself). My message is here. Feel free - obviously - to check if I'm saying the truth. Thank you. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any knowledge in this content area myself, and my WP availability is limited. I mostly spend short periods doing easy stuff like cleaning up obvious vandalism. You might try a post at WT:WikiProject Organized crime. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Probably I could have already done it, if I had thought a little more. But I ended disturbing you. I'm sorry. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ithikkara Pakki
Could you please create an article for Ithikkara Pakki ? He is a heroic outlaw roamed in the 19th century British India, a Robin Hood-esque highwayman and savior of the poor. He along with Kayamkulam Kochunni are the most popular bandits of Kerala and legends on them are part of the local folklore. Not much of any information is available, but there are few. --2405:204:D303:5504:F80A:63F0:BD5A:8479 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not feasible for me right now due to work/school demands and my lack of familiarity with the subject. You might consider posting a request at WP:RA. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing Rich The Kid's Wikipedia Page
Hello, I am informing you that I am wondering why you editors keep removing the facts that I keep updating and you say it is because "the sources I am using are not reliable" - there are other things in the same section (Feud with Lil Uzi Vert) that also came from the same website I used, which was Complex. I am wondering why if the sources I used were not reliable, why the other ones from Complex were allowed to be in the article. I feel if you have to remove what I updated, you might as well remove the entire entry on Rich the Kid's Wikipedia page called "Feud with Lil Uzi Vert". I don't mean to sound mean, but I feel like I am not allowed to update anything on Wikipedia when everyone else is. By this I mean what everyone else has already contributed to the section "Feud with Lil Uzi Vert" on Rich The Kid's Wikipedia page was allowed and my content was not - - some of their sources came from the same website as my sources. The resources used from Complex on Rich The Kid's Wikipedia page (not by me, by previous editors) include https://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/rich-the-kid-has-more-to-say-about-lil-uzi-vert and https://www.complex.com/music/2018/03/rich-the-kid-doesnt-think-lil-uzi-vert-will-respond-to-dead-friends and the events I described were the most important parts of what happened between Lil Uzi Vert and Rich The Kid and if you do not think that is necessary to include in an encyclopedia, then you may as well delete the whole section "Feud with Lil Uzi Vert" on Rich the Kid's Wikipedia page. Because like I said, what I was trying to add to the article was the most important part of the feud by far, far more important than https://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/rich-the-kid-has-more-to-say-about-lil-uzi-vert and https://www.complex.com/music/2018/03/rich-the-kid-doesnt-think-lil-uzi-vert-will-respond-to-dead-friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxtentacionskimasktheslumpgod (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it makes sense to get rid of any section that involves non-neutral or poorly sourced allegations about living people until we have better sources. With that said, my main objection to your edit was that it was written so unprofessionally that I did not even think you were being serious. Think about reading an encyclopedia and seeing a phrase about someone pulling up on someone else. It’s just not close to how formal writing is done. If they had a fistfight that led to them making songs about each other, say that. The way it reads, these guys sound like the two most overly sensitive dudes on the planet. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Raini Rodriguez
How is the source I used not reliable?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/raini-rodriguez
 * The best guideline to answer this is at WP:RS. Let me know if you have specific questions. I think you'll find that your cited source presents several problems, but it's best for you to read the full guideline before editing any more pages concerning living people. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

List of healthcare accreditation organizations in the United States
You might like to edit what is said about the National Council of State Boards of Nursing in this list.Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes. That list looks like quite the mess. I don’t think I’ll have the time to put such sustained focus into it, but taking out the unsourced entries might be a start. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Overly flowery language"
Can you please explain how an NFL.com bio page is a "self-published" source?
 * If we're thinking of the same article, the podcast was him talking about himself, and the link to the NFL.com site included some info about the subject but not his place of birth or his college, as far as I could see. I think I accidentally clicked on save before finishing the edit summary. There were, of course, past issues that make us approach this WP entry with extra care. :) Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted the edits five minutes after they were made. You were able to listen to the whole podcast during that time?
 * There are time stamps that document each edit. Those are available under View History if you decide that you’d like to bring forward some assertions that approximate reality at any point. Further questions should be addressed on the article talk page so as to encourage input from a broader range of editors interested in this embarrassment of an article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks, Mythdon! Happy to help. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Help creating a new BLP
Hey there, I saw you're a member of the Biography science and academia work group and I was hoping you could help me review a new BLP I'm working on. I have a paid COI with MSK, and I've been researching and writing an article on one of their doctors, Nancy Y. Lee (sandbox link). Do you have the time or interest to help review it to ensure it's aligned with Wikipedia's guidelines and written neutrally? I'd greatly appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I currently don’t formally participate in processes like Articles for Creation, but I have written a number of biographies of academics, and I think your article is in good shape. Many COI contributions related to academics have one of two problems - lack of notability or lack of neutrality - but I think you are fine on both counts.
 * On the neutrality front, my only suggestion might be to change “Significant publications” to “Selected publications”, but that’s really a very minor quibble. For notability, there are two ways that academics typically meet requirements - the guideline at WP:GNG and the one at WP:PROF. Academics rarely meet GNG, but I think your subject meets WP:PROF due to her citation counts, having authored several publications each cited >100 times by others.
 * In short, I think you’re in good shape, and I think you’ve probably done about all you can do with this article. The reality is that many articles of academics and physicians are pretty short because the mass media coverage just doesn’t work the same way as it would for a star athlete or entertainer. Nice work on this! Happy to answer specific questions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback! I'm not looking to submit this through AfC at this point, but rather find a willing editor to move it into mainspace, provided he/she thinks it's of sufficient quality. Pending the changes you suggested, would you mind?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Took care of that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

David Eager
Could you weigh in on a user (Prof David Eager (talk) who appears to be editing his own Wikipedia article, David Eager? None of his edits seem to me to be problematic contentwise, but are an issue of wp:COI. I left a COI notice on his talk page, but he's since re-added his edits. Unsure how to proceed. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree - not much of a problem with the content. It sounds like he has mostly fixed verifiable factual issues, like removing some affiliations and updating his academic rank. (If I were a full professor, I wouldn't want to be misidentified as an associate professor, and I wouldn't want to go through a cumbersome process to get it fixed. The UTS website supports that he is correct, and it would be pretty gutsy of someone to make that change if it were not true.)
 * Ideally, he would suggest those changes on the talk page, but that rule is often ignored. The tone could be better in some areas, but the subject is not making that issue any worse with the recent edits. To me, it's not worth fighting over at this point. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting all those edits by Frosty. I've blocked him indefinitely, which hopefully will cramp his style for a while. - Donald Albury 17:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for taking care of the block. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

im new
yes i meant to make a test edit i apologize for inconvenience Thedasgruber (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, . By now, I know you've gotten other warnings, and you probably realize that test edits aren't appropriate outside of sandboxes. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda! Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

why the page sunday suspense is in deletion
why whu why???? MirchiBen (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no sources listed for the information. WP is committed to publishing content based on reliable sources. If there are reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject of the article, add them to the page and also join the deletion discussion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are Welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC) 

Sameem123
Hi I’m Seyer123 I was just wondering why is my youngest brother unblock in Wikipedia by this wikipedian name ferret? I just want to know. Seyer123 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not too sure. I am not an administrator, so I'm not involved in such decisions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another MSK BLP
Hey Larry, hope you're doing well! I've been working on another BLP for an MSK doctor, this time for Luis Diaz (sandbox link). If you've got the time to spare, do you think you could take a look at this one too? The help is always appreciated.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fine at first glance. I have a couple of WP matters to address first, but I’ll take a closer look this week. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know things can hectic around this time of year, so I'm asking around for some more help. I'm still happy to hear any additional feedback if you do find the time!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Larry Hockett: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message