User talk:Larry Hockett

User

Talk

Contribs

Promoted

Gallery

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hi, I wanted to congratulate you for your work on the Death of Irene Garza. These topics are often underrepresented, I so appreciate you writing this. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• BTW - This article inspired me to write Murder of Joey Fischer, who was also from the Rio Grande Valley. Hopefully we can cross paths in future projects. Keep up the good work! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate this, @ComputerJA:. I really like your Fischer article; what a sad story! I think you are going to have another GA to add to your impressive record. If you would ever like someone to do some light copyediting or to take a second look at one of your entries, feel free to send me a message.

The Garza article was very interesting to write, but I may need to rephrase a few things so as not to create a BLP issue. There's no conviction at this point, but it's difficult to even write the article without giving some weight to the overwhelming coverage that the lone suspect has received in reliable sources. No one is describing the case as a huge mystery, except for the former DA, but these trials can take a long time to proceed.

I've also thought of writing about the death of Mariah Alvarez in Harlingen; the suspect in that sad case was arrested, convicted and sent to death row. I might wait though; living death row inmates can invite controversy, and sometimes you end up fighting with random IP editors who want to introduce opinions or original research into that type of entry. Anyway, thanks for your note. It's always great to meet someone with similar interests on WP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My record isn't as impressive as yours! My GA articles are meh. I had come across some of your GA articles before and I'm kind of trying to use the same format/style you use. I was semi-tired from Wikipedia for almost 2 years, so there's a lot of work to be done.

It will be interesting to see how Garza's case plays out. I'll be happy to review it if you ever nominate it for GA or just want for someone to take a detailed look at it.

The next article I want to write/expand is Mark Kilroy's. I think it has the potential to be a great article since the one we have now is really short. It has over 100 views per day, so I think it's time. Anyways, thank you for your message and keep up the great work. Feel free to drop me a message if anything comes up that you think is down my alley. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi EricEnfermero. Quick question. Do you think I should split the Murder of Joey Fischer's article if I want to nominate it for GA? I was thinking of making a separate article for the trials. Thank you, and I hope all is well on your end! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ComputerJA - Great work on this entry. We definitely have entries at least this long that pass GA reviews, so I don't think it's too long. Having taken a rather casual glance at it, the sourcing seems strong and it stays on topic; sometimes longer articles seem to wander off course, but I don't see that here. If you are thinking of eventually taking this to FA (where I don't have much experience at all), this level of detail might be very helpful.

My instinct is to say that you probably don't need to split this. Even in the case of extremely high-profile murder trials that are daily household news across every media outlet in the US, we usually just have one article for the whole case. There is one entry for the O. J. Simpson murder case, for example, though the notable people in that case also have their own entries. I don't get the impression that the subjects in your case are independently notable, so I would keep it all together. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Palindrome

I punted this to 3RR again. Meters (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. More than any argument about cats or cars, there's just a certain editing style behind all of this that's not easy for me to accept. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll happily accept whatever version we agree on, but I see no valid reason to remove the longer version, and I don't want to see a decision made by edit warring against what appears to be growing consensus. Meters (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Flora Molton

On 14 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flora Molton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that gospel street singer Flora Molton performed in downtown Washington, D.C., into her eighties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flora Molton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Flora Molton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

Hello, EricEnfermero! I'm the same dynamic IP from the Bank's [sic] talk page. I just did a quick search of YahwehSaves in the admin-boards archives and, daaaaammmnnn. Years, upon years; first MILHIST and now baseball. Severe competency and IDH issues which should be eligible for some sort of LTA-type vacation. The aggravation and time-consumption of this user is excessive, to say the least. I was wondering if you have, or know of, a timeline of diffs that show the disruptiveness over time. If there is sufficient evidence, I'll take it to AN myself. I'm only on WP part-time, so to speak, so it takes me time to look these things up myself. I think some light needs to be shone on this. Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm frustrated with the situation, but I'm torn because I really try to stay off of the admin boards. I know those forums have purposes, but I think they can become time vacuums that detract from the amount of time we spend building the encyclopedia. I like staying away from politics and just being able to write/edit content. I certainly haven't kept any sort of log, but a few things (most of the stuff I mentioned on the Banks talk page thread) were egregious enough to be memorable.

Generally I only get frustrated with people who are intentionally unconstructive, and it's not my goal to get good-faith editors into any trouble. In this case, it's difficult because I don't think YS really has bad intentions. He just has very strong convictions about a lot of things, and there's nothing - not the MOS, not talk page consensus, not rational discussion, not 3RR guidelines, not an explanation of grammar rules - that can convince him that some of his convictions are inaccurate.

We are able to stay away from each other for the most part, but our interests overlap just enough that we'll eventually run into each other. I abandoned most of my attempts to expand HOF and 1960s-ish baseball articles just to avoid him, but I still feel compelled to jump in when I see counterproductive edits on my watchlist. I don't know where to go from here, but I'm thinking things over. I may just cool it here for a bit and try to be more productive off-wiki until I have some sort of epiphany. Have a good evening - and thanks for reaching out. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Hollimon

On 23 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Hollimon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former Major League Baseball player Mike Hollimon became an executive for a player representation agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Hollimon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mike Hollimon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Section heading

I was just going for not changing your words, not trying to make you look like a moron. Thanks for adding your own phrasing to section head. — LlywelynII 15:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Art + Feminism

Hi EricEnfermero -- I think we are editing the same article at the moment. Are you at the Toronto wiki edit-a-thon by any chance? Kittycatpizza (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kittycatpizza - Thanks for your work. I'm actually in the southern US, just editing here and there based on what pops up on Recent Changes or my Watchlist today. I've worked on a few biographies as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, but I really know almost nothing about art. Good luck to you! EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Irene Garza

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Irene Garza you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComputerJA -- ComputerJA (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Irene Garza

The article Death of Irene Garza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Irene Garza for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComputerJA -- ComputerJA (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nice job! I really enjoyed reading the article again and in detail. If in the future you want to nominate this for FA, let me know. I have no experience in it but we can work together. I can also ask for Fanning's book through an interlibrary loan and update the article accordingly. Thanks! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. At some point I might look at FA. I've really only been to FA once, when my collaborator nominated an entry very prematurely. At the time, it seemed like I was "out of my league" at FA. I'll be curious to see what happens at trial and how the article will need to updated at that time. Since physical evidence can be so important to eliminating reasonable doubt, I think this might be a tough conviction.

I have thought about going to FA with Elmer Ernest Southard (very different subject matter); it was the second article I started on WP and is the oldest of my full-length articles. I got a peer review a long time ago and then got busy with other things. I have a full-length biography of the subject and need to update the entry. That's my long-winded way of saying that I'll probably work on that one before I go to FA with any others. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tina Watman Deleted Page Information Retrieval

Hi Eric, I wrote a page for Tina Watman on Saturday, March 4th, 2017, and it got deleted, despite my attempting to contest the speedy deletion. It was a contribution to the Art+Feminism wiki-edit-a-thon at Transylvania University. It first got nominated after half my page got deleted by a cruel bot that decided it wouldn't let me save my work because it didn't like an external link to a public, official facebook page for a place mentioned in the article. While I'll be the first to admit that some of my sources were a bit of a stretch (most notably a PDF events calendar that doesn't have a way to access it anymore, and I stumbled across during my internet search), they were all legitimate, and I'm rather annoyed that the page was deleted. However, I do not feel this was fair, as her claim to significance is simple: is she a painter. And as the guide denotes: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This is exceptionally frustrating, since I've seen MANY wikipedia pages in my day that may not even have a single citation, and the article may be all of a sentence long, and such articles are permitted to stay on Wikipedia.

It appears to claim that while she's real, wikipedia doesn't see a reason for her to have a page. Which is rather offensive, considering the point of our edit-a-thon was to better represent female artists. There was also some claim that there was unambiguous promotion.The information provided was purely a factual description of the link and the information provided in the shop area, which is the most reliable and extensive display of images of her work. I noted that it was a shop and that it included prices. It would be simple to remove this part of the information, and the link was provided to prevent copywrite infringement.

I abstained from providing additional information that I know from personal knowledge, since there's no specific way to cite that, or adding her birth date since that was only available though her Facebook page.

Please forgive my bitter ranting, but I'm sure you can imagine I'm frustrated. All that said, I'd very much like to retrive the page write up so that I can attempt to improve it and repost it at a later date. I would also suggest that a draft format be provided for future writers.

Thank you, HarpAngel999 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi HarpAngel999 - I'm really sorry for being the root of a frustrating experience for you, especially while you were participating in an edit-a-thon to designed to increase WP's coverage of notable women. I've worked on several biographies that fall under WikiProject Women in Red, and I'm acutely sensitive to the serious underrepresentation of women as WP subjects. It looks like I did nominate your article for deletion (though I didn't delete it) and I'll try to explain why.

In addition to the issues of coverage of women, we also have the problem you identified yourself: We are burdened by a large number of articles that don't meet encyclopedic standards and probably never will. We will probably never track down and delete or improve all of the crummy articles, but in recent years, we at least gotten smarter about not compounding that issue. That's actually why WP requires that today's articles clearly indicate that they meet certain standards for notability. Each type of article has notability standards; you can think of these as some of the things that help articles not to get deleted.

For example, I write a lot of articles about scientists, researchers and professors, so I always compare a subject's qualifications against the notability guideline at WP:PROF. If the professor meets one of the criteria there and I can support that with reliable sources, the article should be pretty safe from deletion. If not, I find another subject to write about. (There is also another notability guideline, applicable to any subject - WP:GNG - but it requires more of a judgment call.) For artists, see WP:ARTIST; artists are a little tricky because there is still some judgment required to determine what constitutes major contributions.

I wish I remembered more about your actual article. There are three common methods of nominating articles for deletion, and I chose the most drastic option, which I only select for articles that are either blatantly promotional or that don't seem to have any indication of notability at all. While I am involved regularly in deletion discussions, I have only chosen to nominate five articles for CSD this year (as you can see here). Google is not the end-all, be-all of reference searches, but a Google search sort of illustrates the problem here. The relevant results are almost all social media (which doesn't really help with notability) or sources affiliated with Watman herself. I don't really see any significant independent coverage that could support the writing of an encyclopedia article.

To my knowledge, there's not really an article template per se, but we do have the Article Wizard, which walks new editors through the basic steps of preparing to write an article. Each user also has a Sandbox, accessible from the upper right corner of your screen. If I start an article and have to stop before it's ready to be published, I just save it in my sandbox and come back to it later. If I want to save it as an article outside of my sandbox, I know that it must be solid enough to withstand a deletion nomination.

With all of that said, non-administrators can nominate articles for deletion, but we can't delete articles or retrieve deleted articles. If you'll leave a message at User talk:CactusWriter, he can probably advise you as to the feasibility of retrieving your article. Part of me is hoping that you'll pick a subject with a stronger case for notability, but I can understand that it's hard to give up on an article you've already put work into.

If you're interested, here is a list of artists that have articles on other Wikipedias but not on the English WP; a few of these are actually American artists. An article on another version of WP is not a guarantee of notability, but it's probably a start. Let me know if I can help further, and again, I apologize for making you frustrated. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rosaura Sanchez

The article Rosaura Sanchez has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you propose for deletion of abdul majid dar

Mr. Eric, you have recently proposed for deletion of the aforementioned page, and no reasonable reason is given. Wiki222222 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The subjects of Wikipedia articles must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I am happy to explain this to you in more detail if the deletion nomination and the associated links do not adequately do so. However, based on the editing patterns that I have seen on this article, I am somewhat afraid that you won't be willing to listen to the advice of experienced WP editors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Eric, thanks for your reply. You can go through the edits and see. If any user has problem with something he can revert that back but reverting the whole content is not upto scratch. I appreciate your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki222222 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting should really only be a small part of the equation. In fact, we have a guideline, WP:3RR, that tells us that editors should restrict themselves to no more than three reverts within an article in a 24-hour period. Listening and learning should play a much larger role than reverting, especially for new editors (and especially for new editors who come here with the purpose of promoting a subject on the encyclopedia). The issue is that you are interacting with experienced WP editors in a very condescending manner, trying to give them advice about editing Wikipedia. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's not true, i know my conscience and i was not advising them i was just asking because if any experienced WP has problem with any particular thing, he is free to do that but reverting my whole edit is a bit of ignorance on your part. I apologise for doing so.