User talk:Superslum

Welcome!
Hello, Superslum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  19:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

sources on George Edward Woodberry ?
Hi Superslum. I saw your start on George Edward Woodberry. It looks good, however would it be possible for you to cite sources so that it can more easily be verified. A good system to use is footnotes although there are others if you prefer them. Thanks Mozzerati 10:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My main source of information is New International Encyclopedia. It was printed in about ten different editions from 1902 to the late 1920s by Dodd, Mead and Company of New York City.


 * The encyclopedia was printed in two main versions: (&#913;): the 1902 main version (which is in the public domain), and (&#914;): the 1913-1916 main version (which is probably in the public domain, too).


 * I always modify the information by omitting one or more bits of information just to keep on the safe side of the copyright laws. I never copy 100% of the information, though sometimes it is necessary to copy entire sentences.  I attempt to make use of the "fair use" provision of the copyright law.


 * Approximately 99% of my contributions have been gleaned from the 1926 edition of the New International Encyclopedia.


 * Superslum 11:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please identify your contributions which are from the NIE? I have designed a template for your use, based on a template we already use for articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It is Template:NIE and you can add it to an article simply by adding the text. Thank you. Gamaliel 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the biographical articles
Hi Superslum. I noticed that you've been putting up a lot of articles for people from the late 1800s and early 1900s. I think you are working on one of Wikipedia's weaker areas, as not many editors have the desire to work on such articles, so your contributions are particularly valuable. Keep up the great work on expanding Wikipedia's scope and coverage! btm talk 08:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

1,000 edits
I passed by my one-thousandth edit on February 11th, 2006. I have introduced several hundred new articles beginning with Firmin Didot on 9 July, 2005. Superslum 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My most satisfying creations were National Bureau of Education and Commissioner of Education because they were being overlooked or ignored.

NPOV disputes
Plenty of controversial issues exist in the category named NPOV disputes.


 * NPOV disputes Superslum 08:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest lie that I have seen in the Wikipedia is at KKK. A statement claims that the Ku Klux Klan broke into the homes of freed slaves "to steal firearms."  Freed slaves possessed neither homes nor firearms, therefore it was impossible for the Ku Klux Klansmen to commit break-ins "to steal firearms."  Superslum 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. My great grandmother Rebecca was the grand daughter of Eliza Davis, a freedman who owned land in Pittsylvania County, VA. Great grandma had a shot-gun and my grandfather remembers her shooting it out of the window of their little house on that same land at the KKK while they circled the house with horses (this was in the 1920s.)


 * Great grandma learned to shoot from her grand father, who trapped fur to supplement their earnings from tobacco. My grand father learned from her and she taught me. We still have the gun.


 * Here is a photo of this amazing woman: http://www1.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=futurebird&pid=24&view=0&rand=87351


 * Clearly some freedman had guns and land. futurebird 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl Ludwig Frommel
I have announced your new stub at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you write more articles about German painters, please add them there. Thank you and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War people
Some of the leading Civil War editors have decided that this category ideally should not contain generals, which have their own categories. I have removed the category for John Hunt Morgan. Scott Mingus 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit number 1,993
I had strived to surpass 2,000 edits by this time (June 15th), but I  fell short by less than ten edits. I just ran out of time. Superslum 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

KKK 1913?
What does the KKK have to do with 1913? That chronological improbability doesn't do anything to persuade me of your deep grasp of history... Churchh 02:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ku Klux Klan has kept a presence in the United States since 1865. The colored women of 1913 were not educated people who were politically active.  They were lucky to have a sixth-grade elementary school education .  It constitutes fraud whenever anyone claims that those uneducated colored women were almost "unanimous" in agreement.  Most of them were housekeepers, washerwomen, cooks, cleaners, cotton-pickers, and so on.  They were not a mass of suave, erudite, politically-active females.  People lynched negroes in 1913.  Superslum 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The KKK wasn't particularly organized in any meaningful form in 1913. Churchh 12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Around 1960 (more or less) the Klansmen would boast that "My grandaddy was a Klansman, my daddy was a Klansman, I'm a Klansman, my son is a Klansman: Klan forever!" The Ku Klux Klan has molded the United States, as far as colored people are concerned.  All of the politicians and authorities have paid heed to the KKK since 1865. They will be present in the United States as long as colored people are around.  Superslum 13:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know whether black women actively worked for voting rights, but I do know that you don't have the slightest concern for historical accuracy -- which doesn't cause me to be too impressed with you chiding other people for their historical inaccuracies. Churchh 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that I acted was to see if the tag would work for me. I had never used that tag, and I was only experimenting with it. The statement that I saw was such a flagrant lie that it invited a tag. I do not waste much time attempting to correct the flagrant lies which plague the Wikipedia. In Europe, in Germany, young people exist who dispute the events associated with World War II. According to a news report that I heard on my television set, the German government passed a law that makes it a crime to dispute the history of Germany at the time of World War II. In five or ten years, perhaps, Wikipedia will have evolved to the point where flagrant lies will be forcefully expunged from it. There are so many lies in it at this time that Wikipedia is at risk of developing a poor reputation for veracity, like "Bill" Clinton has developed amongst the U. S. Presidents. I may not ever again employ the tag because I know that liars will resurrect their lies. I experienced that occurrence at Gag rule where some people insisted on replacing facts with bullshit. Superslum 11:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2,000+ edits
Onward, ever onward! I have now surged past 2,000 edits. I have introduced hundreds of new pages, too. Spring fever has slowed me a bit, lately, however. Superslum 12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Supreme Court lists
I saw your edits to the various talk pages of the Supreme Court case lists, e.g. Talk:List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 68. I realize that there are issues with some of the case names linking to the wrong page, but the only reason I left them alone for right now is that I'm not sure how I'm going to proceed. Take The Siren, I don't know if it will link to The Siren (case) or The Siren (1869), or The Siren, 1869, or many other possibilites. For the moment, I think the links should be left alone, at least until there's a consensus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases on what to do next. Thanks. --MZMcBride 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much for one page... Huh???
re. your message: Talk:French_Wars_of_Religion, 6 July, 2006
 * Seventy-eight years of turbulent history (1520-1598) cannot be crammed into one enormous page. You'll need to employ several long notices on such a page. Superslum 11:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This is a short article. I've removed the long you installed. The mergeto candidate is also fairly short. What gives? It's got very few edits since your post. Best regards, a confused // Fra nkB 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Houdini works
I can't find any reference to "Spooks and Sprititualism" that you added to Houdini's page as works, even at LoC--was this maybe published under a different name? Maybe "A Magician Among the Spirits"??--Fitzaubrey 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Karl Reinecke
Hi there. On 30 March 2006 you created Karl Reinecke, even though there was already a page Carl Reinecke on the same subject. This is just a friendly reminder to check for variant spellings before creating a new page. Thanks. Grover cleveland 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just spent the best part of the morning
producing an article about Hezekiah Augur only to discover at the last possible moment that you'd already done one. It seemed to me (i.e.. opinion) that you had pretty much used a pre-existing uncopyrighted article from elsewhere, so I concluded that perhaps you did not have a great feeling of ownership about the piece, so I am pretty much replacing your article with mine. If this seems presumptuous, or unfair, or almost anything other than a good idea, PLEASE let me know, we can revert back to your piece and go forward from there. Life is supposed to be fun. Carptrash 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

George Parker Winship
A tag has been placed on George Parker Winship, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jeepday (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Cyprian Ricard → Free Negro
It has been proposed to merge the content of Cyprian Ricard into Free Negro. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Creak!
Superslum rose from his casket to resume the creation of new articles. Superslum had been dead since August, 2006. Superslum 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Joseph Eldridge Hamblin
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Joseph Eldridge Hamblin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Joseph Eldridge Hamblin seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Joseph Eldridge Hamblin, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisa Lane Drew
Please note that adding a link to the Wikipedia article on the New International Encyclopedia is not the proper way to add a source if it has nothing to do with the issue you are editing. The article on New International Encyclopedia has nothing to do with Louisa Lane Drew. Please read WP:RS and WP:CITE for information on reliable sources and making citations. Note also that you added a category (People from London) with nothing in the article to back it up. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that you would make such mistakes after editing here for more than two years. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "New International Encyclopedia says that she was born in London": But you don't cite that by linking to the Wikipedia article on New International Encyclopedia. Cite New International Encyclopedia directly, including the page number and all publication information about the encyclopedia. If I write a quote by George W. Bush that I read in The New York Times, I don't cite it by linking to the Wikipedia article on The New York Times because that article will have nothing about the quote. I cite the New York Times issue in which I read the quote. Again, see WP:CITE on how to cite sources. This is basic Wikipedia procedure, not to mention elementary logic. Regarding the category, you did not make a sourced statement in the article stating that she was born in London, and you can't add the category until there is something in the article to back it up. Ward3001 (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are at least 50,000 biographies in New International Encyclopedia. Nearly all of those biographies mention the place of birth of each person, and various facts related to each person.  Since I have no desire to become involved in a "dispute" or a "controversy" with any other contributors to Wikipedia, I am hitting the gas pedal and zooming away from this article.  Time is a-wasting. Superslum (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's your choice. Follow the rules or don't edit. Ward3001 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Wise (author)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Daniel Wise (author), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Daniel Wise (author). — BradV 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Superslum.jpg
Hi Superslum!

We thank you for uploading Image:Superslum.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulletins and reports
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bulletins and reports, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Not a useful article - relevant content is in Wikitionary, or at Law reports, rest of content is dated, and is unlikely ever to be linked from any other article or searched for by any reader.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PamD (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MISS
This is to notify you that I've added your name to Missing Wikipedians as unfortunately you have not edited since February 6, 2008. If you decide to return or just don't want to be listed just go ahead and remove yourself from the list. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Gilbert Yates
I have nominated David Gilbert Yates, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/David Gilbert Yates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Women artists!
SarahStierch (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Irving Andrews for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Irving Andrews 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/Arthur Irving Andrews 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. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Error in the NIE template
The following mistake results in a widely propagated inaccuracy to an out-of-copyright citation at Wikipedia.If it can be fixed, the correction will propagate widely, and result in improved information accuracy in the encyclopedia.

The template:

should reflect the fact that the editors of this first edition were: Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, and Frank Moore Colby (see Template:New_International_Encyclopedia).

Instead, it presents the the third editor as "F. Moore" (presenting the middle name, omitting the surname).

Please, indicate here how this might be fixed (or, if easily done, execute the correction yourselves)? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Leland Haworth


The article Paul Leland Haworth has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The article has 1 citation - more is needed. Poorly written, it only has a few sentences. To be deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JulTrio (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)