User talk:Btphelps/Archive/archive8

DYK for Earnest Elmo Calkins

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Town marshal

"Town marshal" most certainly was a title, used interchangably in 1881 with chief of police. Town marshal was probably more commonly used, but I see both in testimony from the time. Note that marshal is spelled with one l. The name Marshall has two ll's (though of course from the same source).

Do you know of any backup for he odd testimony that Billy Clanton was moved to the doctor's before he died? All testimony I've seen keeps in the house where he was first taken.

Incidentally, the Harwood House is this house where all the bodies and wounded went, and it was at the corner of Fremont and 3rd, closest to Tom (which is probably why they took him there). A house identified as the Harwood house sits at that corner NOW, but if it's the original one, it has since been removed and replaced, since it isn't in the 1908 photo. There were two houses west of Fly's in 1881 (two are seen in an 1882 photo, and one Spicer witness mentions two-- I can't say which at the moment), and Billy was shot next to the McDonald assay house, which was the one just West of Fly's. Perhaps not a residence, or a poor one. You can see the one just west in in the 1888 Sanborn map in the article (probably this one), and the Harwood house on the corner (and larger) is missing even then! Cheers. SBHarris 06:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You obviously know the topic better, so my apologies. I thought I read about Goodfellow treating Billy Clanton but can't find it, only that Billy was carried to Goodfellow's office where his boots were removed before he died. Can you find references for any of the other items marked as needed a citation? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. Goodfellow indeed treated Billy, but went to the house; Billy was not carried to him. Incidently, cities of the time were very touchy about being called "towns." A city had more than 1000 residents, while a mere town had less. There was some celebration when Tombstone went from town to city in early 1881. That is why you see Fred White d. 1880 referred to carefully as a town marshal, whereas Virgil in 1881 is now a city marshal, because Tombstone has gone from town to city. SBHarris 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

I probably added most of the links you worked hard to disambiguate during my major copy edit project on the article this weekend. I had planned to work through the links tonight but you beat me to it....thank you, that was hard work but was also very well done. I did not however, add the dablinks template to my own unfinished work; the article was tagged for that more quickly then I expected it to be. Thanks again for slogging through those links and sorting them out, you did a great job. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the article continues to have four entire paragraphs without any citation. Almost enough for me to quickfail it again. Please rectify this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Btphelps. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Thomas Fitch (politician)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for the DYK review. If you're going to be doing any more DYK work, I highly recommend using one of the tools which I mentioned, especially DYKcheck. Installing it is the easiest way to use it, but it can also be used without installation: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Using DYKcheck. Anyways, thanks again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi mate, thank you for reviewing my work on various articles. I will review the article about Wyatt Earp as that particular character seems to be very interesting. As for your feedback, I don't quite know how to archive my messages, so if you could direct me to the relevant instructions, I would be grateful for it.Canpark (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The procedure for archiving talk pages is well described on this link. It's not too hard, really. Give it a go. See this talk page's source to see how one example. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wyatt Earp

Regrettably, I must inform you that I have delisted Wyatt Earp. See the history on its talk page for an explaination. I have also quickfailed Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. You may contest either of these decisions at WP:GAR if you have any question. Before you do make sure you are acquainted with WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated both. Please reassess Wyatt Earp and I'll resubmit the Gunfight article. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you relisted this at WP:GAC while the article still has 10 fully uncited paragraphs in the main body and at least two citation needed templates. This is unacceptable. I am refraining from quickfailing the article. Please address the citations. I will again delist this if it passes with more than one or two uncited paragraphs. I am willing to bet that in my last 200 WP:GAs, I don't have ten paragraphs without a citation in them. You have 10 in one article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony, even though other admins do not think it is absolutely required, if it will make you happy, I will made sure each and every single paragraph has at least one citation. Then I would ask that you allow another individual to review the article for GA. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you would find much support for any article with 10 uncited paragraphs by today's GAC standards from GA vets. Any wholely uncited paragraph should have a citation needed tag on it. Think of an article with 10 uncited paragraphs as equivalent to an article with 10 citation needed tags. Congratulations on the fine job of beefing up the article. The citations are more in line with current standards, IMO. I am pretty sure it will pass now. If it doesn't I would support a GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for the work on Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo, which is a great example of article development. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll take some time to read through the articles and their history (and your correspondence) as well. I really appreciate you letting me know so that we can identify what aspects of Wikipedia are frustrating, what works well, etc. Thank you, very much. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Followup - I'm absolutely baffled by this situation. Some of my colleagues are also looking into it; I'm sorry that it's been such a frustration for you. I've left a couple of notes and will be following up on this. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

The article Gunfight at the O.K. Corral you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral for comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what your experience has been, but over the years, WP:GA has been trying to raise the standards. There have been sweeps of GA articles and policy discussions. The long and the short of it is that an article that is deficient in terms of citations is not GA-eligible. Thus the quickfail. If you want someone to hold your hands while you find citations go to another process such as WP:PR where the submission is not expected to meet significant standards. Please take this as a lesson and refrain from submitting at WP:GAC until the article has been properly cited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I find this unacceptably rude and aggressive. The article had plenty of citations in the revision initially submitted. If you note areas that require further citation, it is part of your role in reviewing to identify them so that the nominator can address them. If you are unable to identify statements of fact that require further citation, then the article is not subject to the quickfail provisions. If you are unwilling to help nominators by identifying areas that require improvement instead of using a generic and unhelpful template, perhaps you should reconsider your involvement in this area. GAN is an entirely appropriate area for editors to expect directed feedback rather than a templated and uninformative response. This article was in no way a quickfail. Risker (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Locher

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

subst: with PAGENAME

Hi, re this edit - subst: does not work inside a <ref>...</ref> tag, you need to do the substitution manually. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

The article Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brassiere

The article Brassiere you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Brassiere for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Khun Bedu

I think I've addressed your issue. Willing to come to T:DYK to take another look? Thanks, -- Khazar (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Further revision of hook to address your concerns at DYK. Thanks again, -- Khazar (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another try at revision. Thanks for your continued patience & help. -- Khazar (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Schieffelin

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert H. Paul

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM

No problemo, just wanted to keep it more interesting, as a good article, there are a few changes I might do for the "Earp Vendetta Ride", your are doing terrific.... Carry on.--Corusant (yadyadyadya) 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi Btphelps, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we currently have a huge backlog at Special:NewPages and could really use some more New Pages Patrollers. Since you are obviously one of our more trusted content contributers, you would be great at helping us patrol pages. If you don't want to participate, no worries. Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the trust. I've patrolled new articles manually in the past but have pretty much limited myself to a few areas of special interest for the past year or two. I might check the autopatroller thing out when I have time. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatroller isn't a thing that you can "check out" as such... all it means is that when you create a new article, it goes straight onto Special:Log/patrol without manual intervention; it'll say "patrolled (automatic)" at the end of the line, instead of just "patrolled". It still goes onto Special:NewPages, but with a white background (for patrolled) instead of yellow (for unpatrolled). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Lanzerath Ridge

The article Battle of Lanzerath Ridge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on the missing references early next week, thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work, it has now passed. Harrison49 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)