User talk:FloridaArmy/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nomination of Canaan Union Academy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canaan Union Academy 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canaan Union Academy 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iván Duque Márquez, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antioquia and Rafael Nieto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Canaan Historical Society

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Canaan Historical Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Voice Österreich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gustavus Zesch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gustavus Zesch 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavus Zesch 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve John J. Fruin

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating John J. Fruin!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The content you have added so far is not sufficient for a biography. Please address this.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Stemmery) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Stemmery, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please take the time to create articles with references please. You also have a typo in External Links.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your laughable comments

You wrote "There is a bot that fixes double redirects. Please stop deleting useful redirects as you did for Rose Wood Morrison and elsewhere. Deleting useful redirects is not G6 non controversial cleanup. Please restore this useful redirect of take it to a redirects for deletion discussion if you don't think it's useful. If you don't want to wait for a bot to fix a double redirect you can certaibly do it yourself."

How can a double redirect be "useful"? If you create any more, I will certainly (or even "certaibly", as you put it) delete them. Deb (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A double redirect is simple a redirect that hasn't yet been fixed by a bot to bypass the intermediate redirect page. It is useful for the same reason any redirect is useful. What are you not getting? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blaine Young

Hello FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Blaine Young for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

He's certainly a public figure and has received VERY substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Whole articles about him. But given the prostitution conviction I inderstand the sensitivity and desire not to have an article on him. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Battle of Grave Creek

Hello, FloridaArmy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Battle of Grave Creek, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Bloody Springs) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bloody Springs, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

please do not create unsourced articles

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Battle of Tuscumbia) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Battle of Tuscumbia, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

please add a category to the pages you create

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Tiffany Zulkosky

You ask "Are there female tribe members serving in the Alaska Legislature outside Alaska? Not being snarky. I might be missing something." Personally, I typically view statements such as that to be a case of grasping at straws to come up with an accolade for someone. Just some general background, Alaska Natives typically don't use the term "tribe" except in a legal sense. This doesn't carry quite the weight it does in other states because SCOTUS decided in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government that Indian Country is a void concept in Alaska due to the passage of ANCSA. Venetie and neighboring Arctic Village are a special case, as they were established as an IRA reservation sometime around the early 1940s, then chose to accept fee simple title to the reservation's lands rather than participate in the corporation scheme established under ANCSA. That's a little bit of a tangent, but yes, there are tribal organizations, just not quite in the more familiar sense down south. Anyway, there are Native women serving in other state legislatures, which is likely the intent of that particular specificity. Here is one currently serving in the Arizona Senate. My watchlist shows that editors are making a really big deal of Paulette Jordan winning the Democratic nomination for Idaho governor, and she was in the Idaho legislature until leaving to campaign for governor earlier this year. There's a few other states such as New Mexico, Oklahoma and Washington which have strong enough Native constituencies to where it's a pretty good bet that there are others.

My main concern upon seeing this article: there are certain topics in Alaska politics that I try and stay away from because of a possible COI, having been deeply involved in politics behind the scenes during the 1980s and 1990s. Virtually all of the new political biographies created about Alaska politicians the past few years have been persons with ties to a certain political consultant. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I definitely have a COI as it concerns Chris Birch, a first-term representative who defeated multi-term incumbent Bob Lynn in the primary two years ago and is currently a candidate for Kevin Meyer's seat in the Senate. It makes us appear to be out of touch with reality when Birch's first claim to notability occurred the same year Zulkosky was born, yet no article. There are also other legislators with a more solid basis for notability than Zulkosky who lack articles, apparently for the only reason being that they're white and Republican. So much for NPOV. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think members of state legislature are automatically, so to speak, notable, so there shouldn't be a problem creating articles on any of them. What is the preferred terminology for Native Americans in Alaska? Indogenous? Native American? Are they not part of tribes? I will have to read and consider that part of your explanation further. Interesting. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem I outline with Chris Birch is that he's been my friend for 30+ years, and I've stated as much before, so it's obviously suspect were I to create an article. The pattern of many existing articles also shows plenty of COI, though mostly in the form of legislative staff writing about their bosses. Most admins and other editors who scrutinize that sort of thing take one stance when it comes to content covering the for-profit business sector and entirely the opposite stance if it has to do with the government or non-profit sectors. I prefer to stay away from current legislators as much as I can aside from contributing photos, as we're quite lacking in articles on subjects for which a greater variety of sources are available and a greater basis for notability exists. Putting so much weight on current news headlines leads to short-shelf-life-type POV problems; for example, making a whole lot bigger deal out of Zulkosky's predecessor Zach Fansler than he ended up amounting to being. Then you have the countless one-way judgement pipelines (walled gardens) across the encyclopedia where editors will insist that past legislators aren't notable if they are too far dead or retired to go about hiring a social media consultant to throw their name around certain corners of the web today. We have one editor who stated the following last year about Joshua Wright following his death: "...but having read up on his life as described in the obit, he doesn't seem to pass even basic notability guidelines". Yet, an article exists, with the weakest possible sources imaginable, basically another example of us appearing to portray someone as notable for dying. That editor made other excuses but has not acted on the above statement by nominating the article for deletion. Can you say "paper tiger" (or possibly "full of shit", but that runs into WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL territory)? Good, I knew you could. In reality, Wright was arguably far more notable for being the only African-American practicing dentistry in Alaska for nearly two decades than for being an obscure one-term legislator, according to the sources I've read. Try convincing an editor who spends a lot of time scrutinizing what's on the web today but has probably never picked up a book in their entire lifetime of that, however. Rotsa ruck. You can't have "the sum total of human knowledge", as the famous Jimbo quote goes, when such narrow-minded people have all the time in the world to hang out here and push their agendas.

Back to your question before my head explodes: Alaska Natives are typically referred to as "Native" or "Alaska Native" depending on the context, at least in the bigger cities where many different ethnic groups coexist. There's also "Eskimo" and "Indian", except that the PC crowd is out to eradicate those terms plus others such as "Chief". Usually, they insert "Inuit" in place of "Eskimo", except that in an Alaskan context, "Inuit" typically refers to indigenous peoples of Greenland and far northern Canada. The ones from major ethnic groups will also frequently refer to themselves by those names (e.g. Aleut, Inupiaq, Koyukon, Tlingit, Yupik, etc.). The closest we come to tribes are with non-profit organizations on the local level, which will either use the term "tribe" as part of the organization's name or the term "tribal" to refer to some or all of its functions. There are also tribal courts. As far as I know, these are loosely overseen by the state court system in much the same way that youth courts are. In other words, I don't believe any of them have sovereignty as a court. Tribal courts mostly deal with child welfare cases, which are sealed in state courts, and operate in communities lacking local media outlets, so it's kinda hard to get good information. There was a tribal court conference here last week. I was hoping to stop by mainly to get photos of Joel Bolger and Jahna Lindemuth, but I suppose that I might have learned something about the system as well had I attended. Hope all this helps. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Streblus elongatus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Streblus elongatus, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page might be a candidate for a redirect. It looks like the taxon may be under review. PLease do add a taxobox, refer to the family in the lead sentence and indicate why there's uncertainty over the name. Please also add IPNI and The Plant List references as sources. e.g. http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2602776

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Lebanon Woolen Mills

Hello. Thank you for your good work on stemmery. Would you be interested in adding more about the labor history the Lebanon Woolen Mills please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Town Sports listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Town Sports. Since you had some involvement with the Town Sports redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Peleg Chandler

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Peleg Chandler should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peleg Chandler .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Battle of Bloody Hills

Hello, FloridaArmy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Battle of Bloody Hills, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Misnamed. My mistake. I blanked it for speedy deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Bradford Ropes

Hi FloridaArmy. When creating pages, would you please:

Add appropriate WP:CATEGORIES
Add appropriate WP:WIKIPROJECTS (particularly including {{WP Biography|living=yes}})
Use citations of some kind rather than WP:BAREURLS
Use WP:STUBSORT templates where appropriate

Look, you don't have to do this but it's polite to do so, and you should neither need nor expect other editors to regularly clean up after you. Clean up for good faith new editors is enough of a grind. More haste less speed please. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Betty Bartley

Hello, FloridaArmy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Betty Bartley, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Newell W. Spicer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newell W. Spicer 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newell W. Spicer 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustavus Zesch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vicksburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing on Newell W. Spicer, plus needling people you have banned from posting on this page,[1][2] plus ridiculousness (shooting back a retaliatory warning to somebody who is clearly aware of the 3RR, since they just warned you for, in fact, violating it).[3]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Adele Lacy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adele Lacy 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adele Lacy 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. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison (Georgia)

Hi,

There was already an article for Harrison at William Henry Harrison (state legislator), which has a little more specific, so I merged (and added to) your article into that one.

Thanks for the information. From what I read about him in various sources, he's an interesting man!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for merging. I don't think that page was included on the disambiguation page, which should be updated with the actual article name (although a redirect as least gets people to the right place). One issue or question is whether he ever actually served as a state legislator. I believe African Americans were blocked from serving by their colleagues in the state legislatures after that election. It's difficult and troubling subject matter. And it's sad we don't know more about these leaders and what became of them. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't think he served - or at least not much. He and Barnes were denied their seats initially. I wondered about putting that in and information about Harrison's reporting of voting irregularities (colored republicans denied voting, some that did vote had their ballots ripped up), etc.

I am not thinking that he lived real long... the only person that I could find in a census was a married man who did not write (found in testimony that he could read, but not write) in 1870. (Since the Klan was very active... and he testified against them in 1871 or shortly after, I wonder if there might have been mischief involved.) I couldn't find anything more in official records about him after that. There is a lovely article about him that I used in a reference from the Reflections newsletter.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan H. Gardner for deletion

As a previous contributor, I thought I'd give you a heads up that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan H. Gardner 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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_H._Gardner 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.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your error in relation to Adele Lacy

The reference reads "Futter was married once before, in 1927, to Patricia Elizabeth Murphy, they divorced a few years later." This was before he married Lacy, thus she was his second wife. Deb (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Our entry reads: "She was married twice, first to director Walter Futter and then to movie still photographer Madison S. Lacy." Nothing is said about Walter Futter's previous marriage. You've reinserted your error repeatedly. You also turned one of my articles into a circular redirect. You've also improperly deleted useful redirects I created as G6.

I'm pretty patient and try to be helpful but you've been exceptionally nasty to me and disruptive. Your improper speedy deletion of my article was overturned unanimously and you were reprimanded. Why are you still stalking me and causing problems? Go help Sitush. He needs it. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want me here, don't talk about me here. I've not looked at the above example but you're making far, far too many mistakes and wasting far too much of other people's time with sloppy editing. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As I've requested you to steer clear you shouldn't be talking about me elsewhere. Stones and glass houses don't you know. And it's funny you say I make a lot of mistakes, because I tried to help you with some of yours but you weren't interested so I moved on. You've done a lot of sloppy work. But different strokes for different folks. Thanks for respecting my request that you stay off my talk page. The mistake noted above was Deb's so I'm glad we got it fixed. I also fixed some other errors she introduced. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you are welcome on my talk page. I've never banned you from it and you can comment in response to anything or indeed start a new thread. I would be interested to know of my mistakes, my "sloppy work" etc. Just be aware that there are a lot of very experienced contributors who watch that page so if you screw up there you are likely to get into more trouble than you are doing here. So check your facts first. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If the Wordpress site is correct (which it could be, despite not being usable as an RS, or even providing any good references to RS), then the order of husbands listed at Adele Lacy is incorrect: Madison Lacy was first, and Walter Futter was second, and Adele Lacy (retaining her ex's surname as her stage name) was Futter's second wife after Patricia Elizabeth Murphy. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. Please make the change or I will do so when I can. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been counseled many times about creating articles with flimsy sourcing. This was your article when you finished with it on May 18. The AfD was submitted on May 22, more than enough time for you to have finished your work. Instead, others have finished it for you, which is great! Your account is old enough and you have enough edits to apply for access to Newspapers.com through WP:TWL (One requirement is that you not be currently blocked, so you will need to wait at least until your block expires). I strongly recommend you apply for access with that service and any other services that might be helpful. Your enthusiasm is great, but there is nothing in WP:BEFORE that requires a user to search newspapers.com for an individual, and it is frustrating to deal with your work. Your superior attitude (for instance) compounds this. Relationships between editors is important, and I have working relationships with many editors with whom I have a fundamental disagreement with as regards to what makes an article suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I've written articles on much less important figures than Lacy or Spicer that, in spite of my many imperfections as an editor, have shown adequate sourcing and tone that they are not contributed to AfD. As you continue to have pages proposed for discussion or deletion, I hope you take it as a sign that you have lots to improve in your editing, because it certainly isn't a sign that any editors have any problem with you personally. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a read what you've written a couple times and will consider it carefully. At the risk of seeming argumentative, may I ask if you think what you linked to above was a bad start to an article? Perhaps from your comments I should conclude so. Certainly misordering her marriages wasn't ideal. You've been very helpful and I appreciate your efforts so I don't want to be argumentative. But I do take ossue woth some of your points such as the idea that articles should be finished after a few days. I guess the problem is I fundamentally disagree that articles should emerge finished. I see Wikipedia and its articles as works in progress. So that article stub you libked to looks to me like an article off to a great start. A welxome addition. And I don't.see those adding content loke that as the problem or time wasters. Those who take those articles to deletion and fight to eliminate what isn't perfected or finished are in my opinion the problem. Please always free to scold me or offer advice. Obviously my editing has upset some people. On the other hand I've received thanks and barnstars from others. It's hard to please everyone but I certainly understand your points and frustrations. I would love to do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:Your first article, in particular, the bolded question in the introduction: "does this topic belong in an encyclopedia?" which is followed with an explanation: "We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject ... Everything here is based on high-quality independent sources, and without them, we generally just cannot write an article..." An article in the mainspace absolutely should emerge in a form that makes it somewhat clear that a topic belongs in an encyclopedia. There are exceptions to the idea that three high-quality sources are necessary. I have issues with how SNG and GNG are used. But I hope you do keep improving! Best, 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

AFC

Hi, sorry you got a block, its best to avoid arguments if possible and if you get annoyed take a break instead of responding.(ive had a few arguments lately and they wear me out). Thanks for your AFD contributions, have you considered reviewing at Articles for Creation as they have a big backlog, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic 30, I have considered it but I already feel a bit overhwoemed trying to keep up with article deletions discussion and my own article work. That's not to say I wouldn't be glad to lend a hand onany specific projects if I can be of help. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rayart Pictures

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rayart Pictures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dmartin969 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Dmartin969 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Wellyn Totman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wellyn Totman 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellyn Totman 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. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear FloridaArmy, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Rayart Pictures. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Anupam!!! A lot of work still to do but there are lots of interesting early cinema subjects to cover. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Walter Futter

Hello,

Thanks for your addition to the lead for the Walter Futter article. Do you have a source for your addition? Any time you add new content not already in the article, a source is needed. See MOS:LEADCITE. And, any claims, like "best known" need citations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it's largely covered in the article. Which part of it are you disputing? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1) "His most well known work" and 2) "which combined footage filmed in the field mixed with staged Hollywood set pieces and comedic quips".

Both of which are good points... and I think I have read in two different newspapers. I just don't remember where.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's some coverage of how Africa Speaks was made with spliced footage. I've seen it noted elsewhere as well but a quick search and scan didn't turn up the source. The expedition was funded by a media tycoon in Denver and the expedition was at least a few years before the film so the "partnering" wording needs fixing. As far as the most wrll known I eill have to take a look. Ot spawmed a Disney film and Abbott and Costello feature. Just noting that wouldnbe fine with me. But I will see what I can find for it being his best known work. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I reworded to "had success with". One of the sources notes it was profitable with Columbia, it spawned the RKO sequel India Speaks, imitation films, etc. iMDB said it's his best known work and I believe that's true but I can't find solid sourcing for the assertion. This source calls it a popular film. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will take a look at those sources.

As an FYI, there are a couple of really good tools for formatting citations. Wikipedia:ProveIt can be used for any kind of citation, you just fill in the fields and then press "insert" at the insertion point and the tool will insert a beautifully formatted citation. There is also [4]. You just copy in the link for a google books source, verify that you have the right page number and it formats a lovely citation for a google book. Love them!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the query ["Africa Speaks" "Lowell Thomas" narrated OR narration sets] (and other queries), I am still not finding anything about being parts filmed on Hollywood sets. And, I didn't find it in the source you mentioned. Can you help find a source? Maybe I've been using the wrong search criteria.

Thanks for the sources for "popular"; I added that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's covered in that source on pages 137 and 138. Try this link? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything there about narration or about part of the film being made on Hollywood sets/stage. I know that I saw it in a newspaper, but I am not finding it now - and there are hundreds of articles about the film. Argh!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Aaaahhhhh, thanks for the addition! I kept reading for Hollywood sets and totally missed it! I made some edits to the wording and combined the two same-source citations. See what you think.18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

B-Line Trail

Hi,

Thanks for the new article about B-Line Trail in Bloomington, Indiana. I see that the article is tagged because there is only one source.

Do you have other sources, by chance, for the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe this source documents some federal funding the trail got. this article has coverage related to it as does this one covering a proposed extension. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not able to read these. The first one is a snippet, and besides that doesn't state that the B-line trail is in Bloomington (i.e., there could be another trail of that time in another city). The second and third are articles that can only be read by subscription users.--–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It tried to add an article on the raole line and trail's pollution history but had trouble becaise the link address was blocked. I tried trimming the google part but now the link doesn't work. Perhaps searching Brownfield and B-Line trail you can find it? Indeed there do seem to be other B-Line trails so perhaps disambogiation is warranted. I saw one in Cali and I believe one in Pacifoc Northwest. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused. How are you reading the article if you cannot see it? I get a 404 article on your 3rd source. Do you have a subscription for the second source? The content has to be verifiable. (Although, if you do have a subscription and can read the entire article, then it passes - because someone else with a subscription or access to a hard copy could verify it.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see it. I'm just having trouble linking to it on Wikipedia. Did you try Googling "B-Line Trail bloomington brownfield"? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem... or what you are asking. Here's the query for the search parameters you mentioned [5].

The first result I grt from that query is the pdf file I'm talking about. Thats2 the one that has a broken reference link in the article.FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried searching on the source site, but it just keeps spinning and not providing results. So, I ran a queury with EPA B-Line Bloomington Indiana and came up with this. Does this work?

I added some potential sources on Talk:B-Line Trail.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The pdf file has a lot more details on the history and pollution, but that source works for a bit on funding of cleanup. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) maybe you will have been luck searching the original source site: https://www.in.gov (my computer is still spinning on the search) or 2) just include the information from the source you can find right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Bloomington Rail Trail

This is another one source article.

It's absolutely your perogative to create bare-bone articles with just one source, but it would be really nice to round out the articles rather than leaving a string of tagged articles, or articles nominated for deletion.

It will help your Wikipedia street-cred quite a bit to work on creating articles that are at least start level articles with 3+ sources with notable content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Every article has to start somewhere. I don't think I leave many articles with one source. But redlinks can get removed so sometimes as stubby start at least gets a foothold. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, your viewpoint is pretty clear.

I may stick around and work on adding more to your articles, from past experience it is extremely tiring to do this with people who aren't really interested in learning and making better articles. It becomes a seemingly never-ending effort.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost every article I stumble on needs work of some kind. Please focus on articles and areas you enjoy! This is a volunteer project. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the point! There are a lot of articles that need work, and it's discouraging when a single user is creating lots of articles that need work rather than trying to make them at least fair "stub" or "start" articles that don't need a lot of work. I do enjoy historical biographies, as an example, so I will work on those that interest me and tag the articles that need work. I guess there is nothing more that needs to be said.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Siddharth Kumar Tewary moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Siddharth Kumar Tewary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Brad v 04:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Louisiana State Cotton Museum moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Draft:Louisiana State Cotton Museum, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Brad v 04:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska) / Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Draft:Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska) / Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Brad v 04:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chester W. Keatts / Chester W. Keatts moved to draftspace (Improved, in article space)

An article you recently created, Draft:Chester W. Keatts / Chester W. Keatts, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. –CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Another editor moved it back to mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and I explained to that user on the article talk page that she moved it back to article space for the wrong reason. It was never a question of notability, which would have been handled differently. The issue was that the article was not ready for article space.

In the meantime, I have expanded the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Betty Bartley - Filmography section

I am going to revert your edit again because: 1) You have a list of only one item 2) Her work is included in the body of the article 3) She doesn't have a huge body of work and a filmography section is not needed... and even calls attention to the fact that she doesn't have a large body of work (i.e., calls to attention notability question).

This is your third attempt to add a one item list. Why is this important to you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summar filmography sections are recommended by the stlye guide. She was involved in more than one movie and show. If you insist on excluding it then so be it. I'm going to try to avoid working on articles you are because we don't seem to see eye to eye on how they shouod be written. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be because you are reading things into the guidelines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers doesn't mention anywhere that "filmography sections are recommended". There are guidelines regarding when and how to use tables for filmography information, but that's a different point entirely.

In addition, WP:COMMONSENSE comes into play. Why create a list of one or a few items, when it is so much better to have it in the body of the article. In fact, there are guidelines regarding focusing content on prose in the body of the article over lists - see WP:Prose. Call me crazy, but when you are having differences of opinion with experienced editors/contributors... you may want to take a beat and see if there is anything to learn from them... rather than automatically assuming that you are right.

With more time, you may realize that there are conflicting guideliness, where common sense and logic comes into play... and that sometimes the rules don't quite make sense for a situation, i.e. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

I am not saying that I am right all the time. I absolutely am not. And, it's very common to have differences of opinion among experienced editors. But, it's nice to deal with it in a mature, communicative manner. That's my editorial comment, anyway.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note my earlier point "she doesn't have a large body of work (i.e., calls to attention notability question)".–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As my edit history shows, I was working on the article including the shows she was on in particular. The guidelines seem pretty clear. You reverted me twice, the second time after I explained my reasoning. You also have a history of insisting on your edits many of which I find problematic and time consiming to fix. I don't enjoy arguing and going back and forth. If you want your way have it. But it is a large project and there's plenty of space. No need to crowd in on the articles I'm working up. Have fun. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain the exact language that you refer to where "The guidelines seem pretty clear" that states that regardless of the number of films, there should be a Filmography section for actors. That would help me a lot.

We may have a difference in word choice (per your "problematic" comment, which I notice that you make in one form or another in any complaint to you), but when it comes to guidelines, I think it's very fair to say I have more experience as a New Page and Good Article reviewer. If you do see "problematic issues", though, I am extremely happy to address them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rennock Lodge

I see that you started the Rennock Lodge article and state that Rennock Lodge is a neighbourhood in Kingston, Jamaica. I added a {{Dubious}} tag to this statement because I couldn't find coordinates for a neighbourhood with that name on maps. I did a google search and I am only finding a school of that name.

I checked your first source, and there's mention of Rennock Lodge... but not specifically that it's a neighborhood. Do you know where this neighborhood is located so that I can add coordinates? Do you have a source that specifically says it's a neighborhood?

As an FYI, I also added an {{Importance}} tag to a statement about someone being a school dropout. Not sure why that is important.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The guy noted was a notorious outlaw. You are welcome to start an article on him. His connection to the neighborhood is that he went to Elementary school there. Probably from there as well but I didn't see that stated in the source.

Well, perhaps the statement should be reworded then, with a source for that information. It's not important that he dropped out of school.

Our articles on Kingston, Jamaica and Kingston Parish identify it as a neighborhood. Perhaps you can see how those articles have sourced the neighborhoods they include. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not finding Rennock Lodge in those sources. One page came back with a page not found message, so I searched the site, and Rennock Lodge returned Nothing Found.

I did more searching on other maps and all the Rennock Lodge returned was the school. I am not finding anything that says Rennock Lodge is a neighbourhood. Hmmmm. Very weird I cannot find coordinates on any map except for the school if it's a legitimate neighborhood... and that the electoral page for Jamaica doesn't show it as a neighborhood.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A search of the Kingston government website returned no results. What is your goal for this page? I am wondering if this can be turned into another article? Or, should it be deleted outright? Other?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis "Copper" Barth listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dennis "Copper" Barth. Since you had some involvement with the Dennis "Copper" Barth redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rennock Lodge

Hello. Your recent edit to Rennock Lodge ‎ appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Meters, I am not seeing what makes Dennis Barth notable. He's mentioned in a song, he killed two policemen, and he escaped jail twice. Is there something else that makes him notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't resolve a notability tag by removing it. Please see the "provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention" portion of the notice and read up about notability.

As an aside, thanks for coming back and filling bareurls after the article is tagged and creating articles with more than one source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

When I first removed Barth from the article he had no article. FloridaArmy restored the edit, then created a redirect to a non-existent article, and only then created a stub of an article. We edit conflicted on the warning and the actual content creation. Next time please WP:WRITETHEARTICLEFIRST. Meters (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Canaan Historical Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canaan Historical Society 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canaan Historical Society 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. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Ruth Currie McDaniel

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Ruth Currie McDaniel should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Currie McDaniel .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John R. Holmes

The article John R. Holmes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no evidence of notability.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. –CaroleHenson (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring report

By you reverts and providing no feedback at the edit warring report I take it you have no response to the concerns of other editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My response is to do my best to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia as best I am able. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds lovely. I know that you get a lot of tips, and have received a fair amount of comments lately, but I thought I might offer a couple of thoughts that may help you. I don't know if it's a goal of yours for things to go a little smoother among other editors or not... if so, you may want to consider the following to reduce the drama and likelihood of receiving negative feedback.

As mentioned earlier, write articles in your sandbox or in draft mode first until you have a viable article, particularly focusing on a number of reliable sources and notability. See WP:Writing better articles
Verify that you are interpreting the content correctly, and not adding content that is not in the cited source. It doesn't happen frequently, but it happens enough to comment on. I think it is because you create articles so fast.
When another user comes along to improve an article that you previously created, please allow them time to continue their edits before you begin copyediting.
Please consider whether you are actually making an improvement, or if you are making a stylistic change. I say that freely admitting that you have also made copy edits that have improved the wording of my contributions.
Discuss your concerns or questions on article talk pages.

If there is something that I can do to improve the editing experience, please feel free to post a message here or on my talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, forgot one, please, please add comments to edit summaries. That would help so much so that other editors have some idea what you are doing, without having to open up the diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of John R. Holmes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John R. Holmes 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Holmes 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. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In appreciation of your contributions on WikiProject Deletion sorting Pakistan. In my view, you have been very helpful. Thanks and Best Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much @User:Ngrewal1! Very kind of you. I try to be helpful where I can. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of University of the West Indies (Jamaica) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of the West Indies (Jamaica) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the West Indies (Jamaica) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Crystal Theatre (Gonzales, Texas)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Crystal Theatre (Gonzales, Texas) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Theatre (Gonzales, Texas) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I commented in support of some restrictions on you at the ANI discussion.[6] If you would like an explanation, feel free to ask. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ray Apollon for deletion (Withdrawn)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ray Apollon 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Apollon 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. –CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination based upon information gathered by Serial Number 54129. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Apollon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This would be another great article to work on, with the information they gathered. (Fixing articles is a great show a desire for creating better articles.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Saint Clair, Port of Spain moved to draftspace (Finished, moved back to Article space)

An article you recently created, Saint Clair, Port of Spain, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Brad v 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Saint Clair, Port of Spain has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Saint Clair, Port of Spain. Thanks! Brad v 14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the neighborhood. I worked on the Magnificent Seven Houses article and would be happy to help with this article, if you'd like to work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note, too, that it's spelled "St Clair" generally. I changed St to Saint in the query and it still returned "St Clair" predominantly. Sources. So, it should be named based upon its commonly used name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: This can certainly be moved to mainspace now: and see my edit summary! :D *chuckle* Although I don't swear by it. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks so much, moved.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mona, Jamaica and other articles

I have been adding content of interest to you to the Mona, Jamaica article about the sugar plantations, refugee camp, and the Mona campus of the University of the West Indies and still have more to add.

You have so many ideas for articles, that I am sure it is disheartening to be sanctioned. If you are interested in working together, I would be happy to work with you on this or other articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of Community Restriction

Please see this discussion. The restriction in its entirely is

FloridaArmy is prohibited from creating new articles in mainspace or participating or AFD. AFC is available for new articles they want to create and it seems reasonable to allow a single comment/opinion to be offered in AFDs created by FA. To avoid bombarding FA with deletion notifications and clogging up AFD unnecessarily, it would make sense for unsuitable articles to be moved into draft space to see if they can be improved into worthwhile articles and a single omnibus list of such moves would be a good balance between informing FA of what is happening and avoiding templating FA to distraction. These restrictions are valid indefinitely but, should FA feel the need to appeal it, I would suggest they first provided evidence that they understand our inclusion criteria and are able to work to it. Spartaz Humbug! 9:34 am, Today (UTC+1)

Not complying with the restriction will result in escalating blocks. If you have any questions or need clarification please feel free to ask me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I have taken the liberty of starting a list of pages moved to draft space here User:Domdeparis/sandbox/FloridaArmy moves into draft space. If this is acceptable any editors moving pages can add them there. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this is certainly unfortunate. I would have opposed the topic ban since i think you are a net positive, not a net negative. Sure some of your articles have been deleted, but the same can be said of myself. Hopefully you can work on a few articles in draftspace, submit them, and appeal this ban in a little while, since it seems to have been done in a rather ham-handed way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks EDDY. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Two NRHP listed draft articles (in article space, editing completed)

Draft:Hund School and Draft:Hollywood Theater (Leavenworth, Kansas) are both NRHP listed and I added links to NRHP documentation. They both need improvement but even at this stage I believe they satisfy WP:GEOFEAT and could be moved back to main space. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

24.151.50.175, I am working on something at the moment, but I can work on these a bit later today, add the NRHP infobox, etc. When I am done, I will move them back to article space. If you want to get started first, feel free.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I was happy to add the infoboxes. Thanks for looking at these. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

24.151.50.175, Excellent, thanks! I am just about ready to start on these.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have moved both articles, as well as several other FloridaArmy creations back to main since they satisfy GNG. I hope this stupid ban doesn't drive FloridaArmy off the project. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Editorofthewiki, one of which I was in the midst of editing - and got an edit conflict when you moved it. You couldn't wait until I cleaned up the article? What's the hurry?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Something tells me you haven't been involved in evaluation of whether sources are reliable... or comparison of content to cited sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, maybe I should have waited a little bit. With regards to the sources, NRHP site is definitely reliable. I also fixed up several articles in draft before moving to main. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated heading with status.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Clarence L. Mohr

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating Clarence L. Mohr!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. please provide a citation for his post as chair of the history department to show he meets WP:NACADEMIC

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dom from Paris (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at this yesterday and have posted on the talk page. I can't find a reference to him having died - maybe you could add in a reference for that death date? Deb (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata

You can still add people to Wikidata.

I haven't been on that site but perhaps I will take a look Richard. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bloody Springs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bloody Springs 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Springs 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. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't populated places considered notavle? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification of move to draft space

As per the decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_problems? I have moved the following pages to draft space to allow you to improve them so that they meet the neccessary standards to enter mainspace. As per the decision you must not move them yourself but submit them for review.

Dom from Paris (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated with "done" status for the article that was moved back to article space after completing the review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bournemouth Gardens was moved over to article space, too, by Editorofthewiki (EDDY). I worked on it, but I am sure it could be expanded with RS. Instead of just moving them over, EDDY, could you review/improve them first?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

New research tools

I have noticed that you have written a number of articles about musicians and artists, where there are not always a great number of sources. Today I saw that there are some new tools available:

New Wikipedia Library research access: Rock's Backpages (music articles and interviews), Invaluable (auctions and artists database).

See the top of your Watchlist. Perhaps this is of interest to you to help find sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In use tag

If I am working on one of your drafts, with an {{in use}} tag, please let me complete the work. Please note that there are times that I have worded something to avoid close-paraphrasing issues.

This is a warning that will remain in your talk history.

If you would like to work on one of your articles that was moved to draft space, there are still plenty to choose from.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What edit are you talking about? I haven't knowingly edited any article where I saw an inuse tag. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This article Draft:Larus and Brother with this edit, which was written to avoid a close paraphrase issue, as I mentioned in the edit summary. I changed back and made it "Richmond-based company".–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not just rewrite the sentence so it makes sense if you can't rephrase the original wording coherently so it's significantly different? It doesn't really make sense that they founded the company when they ourchased another company anyway. Did they found the conpany or did thry ourchase another company and rename it? Or how aboit just saying they purchased xyv company in year #### and incorporated their new company as XYZ. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Also I don't think writing when something was founded can be copyrighted or plagarized. There has to be some kind of original idea or creative thought involved. So if a source says Fred was born in 1879 I don't think we have to rephrase. In 1879, Fred was usehered into the world as a baby. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This post was to request that you not edit while I have an in use tag on a page.
Are you really going to say that "...when they purchased the Richmond-based company, Harris Tobacco Company." does not make sense? Really?
I was told by copyright folks to assume that webpages are copyrighted. So, out of habit, I seek to paraphrase rather than search out a disclaimer by the website that the material is not copyrighted. I am not seeing anything that says that the material is not copyrighted, so I am going by what I am told, assume it is.
You essentially said you want to quit any back-and-forth and don't want to hear about guidelines or common practices from me. So, why are we still talking?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We're still talking because despite my repeated polite request you are still stalking my every edit and putting poorly worded misinformation into articles where I've been active. If you can't understand why "Bill was born in 1972" can't be plagarized or copyrighted I don't know what to tepl you. Rephrase away but please try to do so in a way that makes sense and isnt overly complocated and obtuse. You clearly like long wordy articles whether or not they make any sense or are logical. I much prefer facts and significant details presented in a cogent and accurate manner. When someone corrects one of my many mistakes I'm thrilled. When yours are pointed out yoi dig in. The 20th century is not the 19th. I've now provided you evidence of two building that include a feature you said was used in the 18th and 19th centuries. Why lie to our readers when you know that's incomplete and misleading? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, we have to agree to disagree about your points. The point about 18th and 19th century is hilarious. Again, you are not supposed to add content that is not in the cited source. I am making updates to your edits or reverting them because they are not following guidelines. The fact that you are not getting that is bewildering to me and I am getting about ready to a request a block for your outright inability to understand and/or follow guidelines.

I don't see any purpose in talking further. If you want the last word here, too, go for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What policy am I violating trying to get you to include what a Demerara window is in the article on Demerara windows? And I supplied a cite for a home with them built in the 20th century. Don't lie. I'm glad you finally made the change to inckude that they jointed (hinged) at the top. I don't know why it's been so difficult. It's pretty basic. Fundamental. What makes ot that type of window. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Millstone Academy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Millstone Academy 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millstone Academy 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Exemplo347, I would be happy to 1) verify whether the name is Millstone Academy (article title) or Academy at Millstone (1st sentence of the lede) and 2) merge this into the history section of Millstone, New Jersey. And, then the deletion discussion could be withdrawn. There is one article that links to it. I did not find any others in a search, though. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem I've found with this article is that there's simply no way of knowing the name of this particular academy. Neither of the sources in the article mentions a name, so I don't know where the names in the article came from. I can't ever imagine writing an article about something without actually knowing what it's called, but there you go. It could be easy to assign a name to it but that'd need a synthesis of the sources or some original research, and I think it'd be simpler to get rid of this article and start over if anyone ever finds sources that meet the standard of the General Notability Guideline - which will be hard when we don't even know the name of this place. I hope that makes sense CaroleHenson and I hope you're well. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Exemplo347, Gotcha. I am seeing that most often the phrase "an academy at/in Millstone, New Jersey" is used often in one-sentence content that says someone attended or was on the faculty of the school. Which, along with Millstone Academy, is used for the one person linked to the article. But, I am not finding but a couple of instances of Millstone Academy and one instance of Academy at Millstone (which could have been a capitalization typo based upon all the other uses of "an academy at/in Millstone"). Since there is only one article that links to this one and I am not finding more content to add, I agree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure

Hi FloridaArmy,

This is a last ditch effort to see if you are interested in following Wikipedia guidelines. I am in the process of putting together a posting for the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board stating that even though you have been sanctioned, you have been ignoring the guidelines regarding:

adding sources that are not reliable sources
adding content that is not cited
adding content that is not in the cited source
making unhelpful edits, like editing so that previously cited content appears to be uncited
making a number of edits to an article that are stylistic changes and/or change the meaning of the content
insisting on adding content that is tangential to the topic, and inability to understand WP:COATRACK

A result of posting that could be an indefinite ban. Are you at all interested in learning and following guidelines?

If not, I think I have a strong case and will move forward of your continued editing activity against guidelines. I hope that this might give you a different viewpoint and you might choose to follow guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Normie (slang) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Normie (slang) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normie (slang) 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. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Page moves to draft part 3

I just gone through the page creations here from the first Maureen Callahan created on 28/11/2017 to Pronovias created on the 14/01/2018 (87 articles) and the following 25 have been moved to draft space. Of the articles I haven't moved 13 have already been deleted, I have Prodded 1 and sent 1 to Afd. This makes a grand total of 40 articles. Which leaves 47 that IMHO are acceptable, either because others have extensively edited or they were Ok in the first place. There are still more than 230 article creations to go through. I do not believe I have been severe, I have looked at every single source in each article that I have moved where there were some as a few were totally unsourced, all my moves have edit summaries that explain why I moved them.

Dom from Paris (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Arkansas City

I removed the pic because I thought it was on the wrong article and could be somewhat misleading. That was the image of the old high school, not the new one, which is what the article is about. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Well there is discussion of the old building in the section where I added it and I tried to make the caption clear. But I'm under heavy fire so whatever you think is best. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification of move to draft space part 2

The following pages have been moved to draft space. I have moved obvious exemples with just a reference to the community decision those that are not obvious I have checked out notability, sourcing and history and where there is a serious doubt I have moved them giving my reasoning for doing it in the edit summary. Don't hesitate to contact me if you need more information as to why.

Draft:Mascoma State Forest Done
Draft:Siddharth Kumar Tewary-restored
Draft:Oscar Eugene Learnard Done
Draft:Old Kickapoo Done Merged to Bleeding Kansas here
Draft:Hund School Done
Draft:Hollywood Theater (Leavenworth, Kansas) Done
Draft:Larus and Brother Done and moved to Larus and Brother Company
Draft:Lizzie Doron restored
Draft:Louisiana State Cotton Museum Done
Draft:Harry L. Franklin
Draft:Court of Industrial Relations (Kansas)
Draft:Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska)
Draft:George W. Murphy -- moved to George W. Murphy by editor Editorofthewiki & redirect at draft is being deleted. --Doncram (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Solvent Savings Bank and Trust Done
Draft:Herman Sang Done, one sentence remaining, notability tag added
Draft:Stanley Motta
Draft:Battle of Tuscumbia Done major issues, created a redirect to Battle of Cherokee Station#Aftermath

Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Update with status.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Finished updates to articles that were moved back to article space and added status above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one moved over, but after some additions, in progress to expand and likely review content to sources and verify source quality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to say you are doing a great job but also how disappointing it is that FloridaArmy doesn't seem to feel that he should be contributing to the clean up. In fact the idea behind the move to draft space was because the state of the articles was creating unnecessary work for other editors...seems sort of ironic that he just has to sit back and watch others clean up anyway. Dom from Paris (talk)

Thanks. Who knows why, perhaps to learn from the changes being made would be my might hopeful thought... so I've been trying to be clear where there are issues in the edit summary. I do see that he (the user is a he you say), does occasionally make positive, minor copy edits when the review is complete (i.e., making corrections vs. stylistic type edits of the past).

I hope he begins making edits to the drafts, it would be a great show of a willingness to understand the points that have been made and improve the articles. It would be a major step forward!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have used he since they had their user page deleted. I suppose I must have seen something there at one point that made me use the masculine pronoun. What's a shame is that they have decided not to edit the drafts and wait for the move and also ignore all that is going on to clean up their creations. Not cool on their part. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) ps I'm not a big fan of talkunt about a user on their talk page in the third person but when they are refusing to engage in discussion...

No, I think the user page deletion was completely innocent. I think FA was using it as a sandbox before realising it was in the wrong place. Deb (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, @Domdeparis, Deb, and EditoroftheWiki:, others, I am going to start working on the rest of the drafts. It will be actually be a lot easier to start the review with the stubs. (I got all messed up on the last article and mixed up the citations initially. Migraine doesn't help.)

I may not do tons of research, but keep some of the drafts in stub or early start versions.

Question: once I have reviewed/edited (RS, content to sources, encyclopedic content, etc.) and added some more content - what is needed to move to article space (e.g., # of citations, other)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Type, repinging Editorofthewiki (EDDY).–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

For me so long as there are serious claims to notability there are backed up by reliable sources then they can be moved back. A lot of the articles were on presumably notable subjects but the sourcing was so poorly and lazily done they were unacceptable as they were. (No sources for historic buildings for example or sole use of interviews on biographies) these just need a limited amount of editing to be accepted as per the WP:AFC reviewer guidelines. Some were on subjects that didn't meet the topic specific criteria (eg civil war officers that did not command sufficiently large units to pass NSOLDIER) and did not have enough sources to meet GNG. These kind of articles will have to be more thoroughly researched and sourced...I would leave that to FA if I were you. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Update status above for Oscar Eugene Learnard.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Update status for Draft:Old Kickapoo above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the status for Larus and Brother Company. This is the last of the user's drafts that I will work on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kidd Harold for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kidd Harold 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidd Harold 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. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct spelling seems to be Kid Harold although the oft repeated Marcus Garvey connection bit spells his name Kidd Harold. Seems to be coverage here but I am having trouble accessing. The Jamaica Gleaner has quite a bit of coverage of him and his vaudeville duo Harold and Trim in their archives. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be passing mentions unfortunately but when you have more sources you are allowed to make one comment on the AFD so you can add them there. If you find others after having made the comment you can note them here and ping me and I will add them to the discussion if you wish. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not describe this as a passing mention and from what I can see of the bpok source noted above it has some coverage of him. Lots of mentions as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, I meant the mentions in the book link in the comment above mine. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Can you see all of that book source? What does it say about him? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Merl R. Eppse

By changing this article in mainspace when it had already been moved to Draft, you have lost the edit history. How do you plan to rectify this? Deb (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. I agree a history merge is needed. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. It's better, though, not to copy content from draft space to the moved article page. It takes awhile, often, to get the history merged, and it's much easier to get a draft moved to article space. (I did that myself, though, early on before I knew better, too.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Content from Old Kickapoo was merged and that article's history lost as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a merge, that's different. But, the draft page should have been kept and moved to article space to maintain the history... with merge templates posted on the page. That was my mistake. I will see if I can get this brought back and add the merge templates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Update underlined.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For the Eppse article, the easiest thing would probably be to copy the updated article over to the draft space version and then move that article to article space. Due to editing restrictions I am unable to do that. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are able to request help with moving the draft to article space. If you make viable edits in draft space, I am sure that there are many people who watch this page that would be happy to help with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, I copied over the changes. So if the article space version is deleted to make room the draft version with the history intact can be moved over it. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, I copied the edit over too and attributed the intervening edits to you. I deleted the scraps in mainspace. If the article is ever restored I'll happily do a history undelete for these few revisions but its not needed for attribution anymore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, having the history brought back for Old Kickapoo and Draft:Old Kickapoo. They direct to the specific section where the content was merged.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Carole. I appreciate it. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

stuff

About stuff which has gone down, I want to say that I am sorry I did not get to the wp:ANI proceeding where a ban on new articles and ban from AFD was proposed, though I did get notified and saw it. I was brooding about participating there, then it was finished before I did. I have overlapped with you on historic sites and some other places articles, and on some interesting American Civil War officers, but I have not followed and am not good on bio articles and other articles you do. It takes a lot to have a whole perspective. Maybe I could have spoken up well enough to swing the outcome on one of those bans, if I could have been very eloquent about what Wikipedia is and should be (including that articles don't have to be perfect when born) and should not be (unnecessary following/harrassment), but I guess I wasn't up to it because I didn't speak. I am sorry. I too had proceedings about me in a number of wp:ANI proceedings and eventually a horrible arbitration experience, and I did/do feel there was awful s*** that went down in my case. At my user page I state that "my overwhelming personal experience in Wikipedia has been learning firsthand about bullying and harassment, which goes on too often," and that is the truth.

But, that said, it is not too terrible to have a ban on creating new articles in mainspace. I had that imposed and it was basically perfectly fine. I continued creating articles on NRHP-listed places in draftspace and submitting them through AFC, and I had nice interactions with conscientious, nice AFC editors. Some of them were happy to see my submissions because mine were generally quite obviously notable topics and I had sources and so on. They created a special category for my contributions, even. :) I was in fact influenced in the process, to take more care in my new articles to include categories and address other aspects which I thought were unimportant myself but I gradually realized seemed to matter to other people. The AFC editors were not to blame. And it is never a problem if a new article is declined or not reviewed for a while; some delay is never a tragedy, and the drafts got more attention and development eventually and nothing was really lost by the AFC process. I hope you will keep your chin up and keep contributing largely as you have done in the past, though necessarily a bit differently now. It will work out in the long run for you too I expect. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, if you'd be interested in starting a multitude of NRHP articles, in particular, I'd be very interested in cooperating. I don't remember seeing if you have used the NRHP infobox generator tool, which speeds up production a lot, to work on, say National Register of Historic Places listings in Kansas, where Hund School is. --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how encouraging FloridaArmy to break his topic ban will help them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

They are banned only from new articles in mainspace by the decision you, Spartaz, stated above; FA is explicitly welcome to create anything and everything in draftspace, and submit for AFC approval, and can further put in category Category:FAspecial (an admin category that I would create) on any they want to get my expedited attention to "review" and move them to mainspace. I would respond to any other notification process, but it would be convenient for me and others to use the AFC pipeline and approval tools. All FA has to do is either use the AFC article creation wizard, or figure out what is the current template to slap into a draft article to submit it to AFC (I think all you need to do is put {{submit}} at the top of the draft, and I suggest also adding [[Category:FAspecial]] at the bottom). FA can do this for all the articles recently put into Draftspace, too, and does not need to beg for watchers here to review them. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

with the due amount of respect that is not what you said and I would have hoped that instead of looking round for a back way to create articles after a justified creation ban that FA would be encouraged towards other editing endevours that will help them understand what is or isn't permissable. Perhaps my memory is wrong but havn't you had problems before from creating articles that were not notable? Apologies if my recollection is flawed but I"d suggest that one editor looking to get FAs articles into mainspace isn't perhaps the most helpful way forward for them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

im not completely senile at least but, seriously, you have had problem historically with creating articles. FA just got banned from it and, I'd suggest your time was better spent teaching them the ropes than looking for ways round the restriction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Spartaz, it seems you are being a jerk. What I said was that I had an article creation restriction. Bully for you that you went and looked it up. And, there were a ton of jerks and tons of jerkish behavior involved in trying to demonize me back then, and you apparently don't know about it, and I dare say not a single article of mine was ever deleted due to all of those efforts, because I was right and they were wrong and you are wrong now too. And, it is a darn good way forward, quite a good suggestion, on my part, to suggest that FA work in the non-controversial virtually 100%-guaranteed notable of NRHP articles. You had your moment, coming out with a judgement on FA, and now you seem to want to run with adding conditions. I think you should back the hell off. If you think I am being harsh at you now, well, you asked for this. I could be more direct if you would like. --Doncram (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Spartaz, I don't think Doncram was suggesting anything nefarious at all. Simoly encouraging me to use the Afc process and offering work with me to help make proper articles. No need for smears and assumptions of bad faith, especially from an admin. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the concern is either. Wasn't the point to use draft space and/or AFC to work on articles?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

University of the West Indies (Jamaica)‎

I see that this article has been directed to University of the West Indies as a result of the deletion discussion. I moved over content that you added regarding the hospital into the history section.

I didn't move over the content about the programs because much of it was announcements about something to come, which will be notable once it happens. So, that can be added later. There was also some information that didn't seem particularly notable without context - the scholarships, premiering a film, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It was news coverage about a major university which you voted to redirect. The film that premiered at the university was about Walter Rodney, one of many notable alumni of the university. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I voted to merge and redirect... and you added information after that vote. It was closed with the decision "Redirect". But, I went ahead and moved over the hospital info. If someone wants to take a look at this pre-redirect Program section and see if there is content to merge to the University of the West Indies / main article, that would be great!

I am not sure what the following three subsections are about.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Academics

Sandra Palmer (entrepreneur)
Mervyn C. Alleyne
Douglas Manley former
Cedric Hassall
Kenneth O. Hall
Mervyn Morris
Rex Nettleford and alumnus
Alan Eyre
Evelyn O'Callaghan
Carolyn Cooper
Brian Meeks (former)
Elsie Gloveia
Beverley Bryan
John Edgar Colwell Hearne ("Extra-Mural Department")
Opal Palmer Adisa
Archibald McDonald, Principal University of the West Indies, Mona. Former Dean of the Faculty of Medical Sciences

Programs

Caribbean Policy Research Institute

Alumni

UWI F.C. (University of the West Indies F.C.)

University of the West Indies Press

Savacou (sculpture)

Conference Marley's Music, Reggae, Rastafari, and Jamaican Culture, Held at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, 5-6 February 1995

In April 2015, Jamaica planted its first legal cannabis plant, at the University of the West Indies Mona campus.^[1]

References

^ "Jamaica just planted its first legal marijuana plant - Curaçao Chronicle". Curacaochronicle.com. 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2017-02-04.

Your work on drafts

Hi,

It's great to see your work on drafts! Do you want Doncram, me, or someone else to review the work that you've done, with the objective of getting them ready to move to article space?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing since you have posted several times on your talk page since I posted this:

You are working on the drafts, but are not done
Or, you don't really want these moved to article space.

You don't need to respond to me, per se, you can ping someone else to help you when/if you are ready to have these reviewed with the goal of moving them back to article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lisa Curtis has been accepted

Lisa Curtis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Good news. She seems to be an important figure influencing U.S. President Donald Trump's policies on Pakistan. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Barenger (June 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The two references here both resolve to the same place, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. I did some searching on my own, and can find essentially nothing about this person, so fails WP:NBIO. This is unfortunate, because the encyclopedia needs more articles about 18th century artists and fewer articles about 21st century pop culture, but if the sources don't exist, we can't have the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Samuel Barenger and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Samuel Barenger, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy. Thanks for having a look at the article. I don't understand your comment asserting that the British Museum is a primary source? I also think that per WP:ARTIST having one's work in a major museum collection establishes notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. @Floridian, there's an interesting discussion here specifically regarding the difficulties of sourcing Engravers; it might assist with an expansion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting discussion. If I read it correctly there is some dispute about whether inclusion in certain sources (such as the Benezit Dictionary now cited in the article) automatically establishes notability. Regardless, a merge to some sort of list or broader topic would appear to me to be the worst outcome. I would certainly argue that wp:artist makes clear that an artist whose work is in notable collections and part of notable works such as the Atlas, early sporting prints after paintings by his relation, and books on British antiquities (he's featured on the title page as THE engraver for at least one book) would seem to me to establish notability. The discussion found Charles Pye notable but he remains drafted.. At least an article for deletion would seem warranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with notability re. being exhibited; not sure it applies to books—I mean, the Victorians particularly had the luxury of printing anything they wanted—but, what discussion was there arund Pye? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He's mentioned as barely clearing the notability bar in the discussion you linked. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! The discussion was all of five days ago...could've been a lifetime now. But, yes, I see what you mean. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(Outdent) Serial, I'm not sure what you mean that in the Victorian era people had the luxury of publishing books on anything? Publishing especially with engravings was a fairly expensive and involved task was it not? Just one version of Brittanica Depicta took years to complete as I recall. These were major works of historical importance. To a collector or museum or pageless encyclooedia it would certainly seem to me to be worthwhile to include a synopsis of what we can establish about the artists involved. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siddharth Kumar Tewary (June 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Siddharth Kumar Tewary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Siddharth Kumar Tewary, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@user:legacypac I added some additional sources and content. Would you be willing to reconsider? He's involved with some major productions. Perhaps an AfD would bring more interest? I'm sure it would survive but I'd be happy to have others who are more familiar eith the subject matter help fix it up. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

architect A. Warren Gould

Hi, about Draft:A. Warren Gould (to go to A. Warren Gould), thanks for contacting me. Per the NRIS database 2013/2014 version, he is credited as architect of just one NRHP-listed building, Arctic Building, already mentioned in the article. But I added the NRHP document to the building article, and, bingo, there is a short bio about him including birthyear and listing various works, in the NRHP document. You may or may not know that I have developed lots of articles about architects, in Category:NRHP architects. Usually one or more of their buildings' NRHP documents have bio info like this. I use the "Query by architect" tool at http://elkman.net/nrhp/ to find their buildings, and the "Create an infobox for a given property" tool's link to NRHP document for any one given property. Here this yields not a whole lot, but enough. I'll watchlist it. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried using the tool but can't get it to work. I tried various name orders, spaces, comma and no comma, % between names, but I can't seem to figure out the trick. Tried a few names, but Charles Saunders for example. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep your search strings brief. At [7] I put in just "Saunders" and get about 20 hits. Searching on the page then for "Charles" yields nothing though. Visual review doesn't come up with any close alternatives either; it seems like Charles Saunders (architect) is not listed in NRIS. --Doncram (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Okay. Using just Saunders, as you suggested, I did come up with "Northern State Hospital, Roughly bounded by Thompson Dr to the S, Hemlick Dr to the E, Hub Dr to the W, and 1/4 mi S of Mosier Rd to the N Sedro Woolley, WA Saunders and Lawton ". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

[1] "Jamaica just planted its first legal marijuana plant - Curaçao Chronicle". Curacaochronicle.com. 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2017-02-04.

[1]

Nomination of Canaan Union Academy for deletion

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Speedy deletion nomination of Canaan Historical Society

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Nomination of Gustavus Zesch for deletion

Ways to improve John J. Fruin

A page you started (Stemmery) has been reviewed!

Your laughable comments

Speedy deletion nomination of Blaine Young

Proposed deletion of Battle of Grave Creek

A page you started (Bloody Springs) has been reviewed!

A page you started (Battle of Tuscumbia) has been reviewed!

Tiffany Zulkosky

A page you started (Streblus elongatus) has been reviewed!

Town Sports listed at Redirects for discussion

Deletion discussion about Peleg Chandler

Proposed deletion of Battle of Bloody Hills

Proposed deletion of Betty Bartley

Nomination of Newell W. Spicer for deletion

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

May 2018

Nomination of Adele Lacy for deletion

Nomination of Jan H. Gardner for deletion

Your error in relation to Adele Lacy

AFC

Speedy deletion nomination of Rayart Pictures

Nomination of Wellyn Totman for deletion

A barnstar for you!

Categories

Siddharth Kumar Tewary moved to draftspace

Louisiana State Cotton Museum moved to draftspace

Draft:Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska) / Court of Industrial Relations (Nebraska) moved to draftspace

Draft:Chester W. Keatts / Chester W. Keatts moved to draftspace (Improved, in article space)

Betty Bartley - Filmography section

Dennis "Copper" Barth listed at Redirects for discussion

Nomination of Canaan Historical Society for deletion

Deletion discussion about Ruth Currie McDaniel

Proposed deletion of John R. Holmes

Edit warring report

Nomination of John R. Holmes for deletion

A barnstar for you!

Nomination of University of the West Indies (Jamaica) for deletion

Deletion discussion about Crystal Theatre (Gonzales, Texas)

ANI

Nomination of Ray Apollon for deletion (Withdrawn)

Saint Clair, Port of Spain moved to draftspace (Finished, moved back to Article space)

AfC notification: Draft:Saint Clair, Port of Spain has a new comment

Mona, Jamaica and other articles

Notification of Community Restriction

Two NRHP listed draft articles (in article space, editing completed)

Ways to improve Clarence L. Mohr

Wikidata

Nomination of Bloody Springs for deletion

Notification of move to draft space

New research tools

In use tag

Nomination of Millstone Academy for deletion

Full disclosure

Nomination of Normie (slang) for deletion

Page moves to draft part 3

Arkansas City

Notification of move to draft space part 2

Nomination of Kidd Harold for deletion

stuff

Academics

Programs

Alumni

Your work on drafts

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lisa Curtis has been accepted

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Barenger (June 10)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siddharth Kumar Tewary (June 10)

architect A. Warren Gould