User talk:SchmXstrr

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SchmXstrr. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

re Hibbing, Minnesota
OK, but the proper place to talk about the contents of the Hibbing article is at the Hibbing talk page, here: Talk:Hibbing, Minnesota, specifically at the thread Talk:Hibbing, Minnesota. The last revert was made by User:Cmr08 not me, so you need to convince the general community of editors interested in that article, and that's the place to do it. Herostratus (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you not edit war about this please. Please see WP:BRD. You've added Baratto (don't know what happened to Arabanos, he actually seems more notable) and now three editors have indicated that they don't agree (me, and User:Cmr08, and now User:WilliamJE) and you have to consider that. And also you haven't made a case. I made a case for you as a favor (and to show how it might be done) but I don't really agree that a town as large as Hibbing with quite a few residents who have Wikipedia articles should list people who don't. One very good reason for only listing people with Wikipedia articles is that it's a clear line which avoids arguments; if we start listing people without articles that means lots of case-by-case discussions about who should and shouldn't be on the list. "Has article == in, no article == out" is much easier.


 * It's possible that Arabanos could have an article (not too sure about Baratto), maybe possibly. See WP:GNG and WP:BIO. So you could try making an article about him (or both) and then Bob's your uncle. Or maybe, and I understand you're fairly new here, just back off a bit and try working on some other stuff, maybe looking at other articles for similar-sized localities and see how the Notable People section is handled for them, and so on. At any rate, just insistently restoring them is not how we roll here. We operate by discussion, enlightenment, consideration, and consensus when people can't agree on something like this. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just removed Barrato again. Without a wikipedia article or some reference from a WP:RS to prove notability, an entry to a notable people section can be taken down. That's the consensus around here. Some state wikiprojects require an article the person. A reference alone isn't good enough....William 17:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi All, my sincere apology for my green novice mistakes trying to add Notable People entries to this page before they actually have their own landing page to which their names can hyperlink, which seems reasonable enough to want as a prereq. FWIW, Matt Barratto and Jim Arabanos definitely are as notable if not more than no less than 50% of the notables currently there but neither currently have their page, Jim GOD rest his soul is deceased for here at least as of this past fall.  Needless to say, there has been some pretty incredible "notable people" that have come from Hibbing, so I don't take it lightly when I add someone UNLESS, they are definitely "notable people" and it can easily be proven with a URL for example  http://www.hibbingmn.com/news/article_a3516c2e-4704-11e2-bb7b-001a4bcf887a.html  Also, fwiw I'm the contributor who's added most of Notable People on this page, I could rattle off 10 names off the cuff but I'll spare y'all that -smile- Scott Sandelin has been one, anyway gotta sign-off now but, I'll be back, cheers.User:SchmXstrr 18:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's OK, you're doing fine. I appreciate your contributions, we all do. When I started out I got a lot of my edits rolled back and sometimes still do. It's just part of the process. As to the rest, first of all, it looks like you might now Jim Arbanos personally and this may be coloring your perception (although maybe not). Second, all this need to be discussed on the article talk page. Not too many people are reading this page and it's there that you need to make your case (which is not unreasonable). As it stands now, there are three editors who have said they don't think Arbanos and Baratto belong, partly because we have a kind of de facto standard that generally only putting in people with articles makes the whole process much easier, and to override that we'd need a really compelling reason. As I say, Arbanos might well rate an article based on the obituary and the fact that someone called his work a precursor of social media (which is a very big deal nowadays) and perhaps there are other sources. Baratto could also possibly rate an article (doubt it, but you never know) but you'd need published sources to demonstrate this. Again, all this discussion has little effect since it's not taking place on the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)