Jump to content

User talk:Eddie891

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ebuaki (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 31 January 2021 (→Ebs Akintade: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Stranger! if you, passing, meet me, and desire to speak to me, why should you not speak to me? And why should I not speak to you?" - Walt Whitman

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy
Unanswered peer reviews
FACs needing feedback
view • edit
La Isla Bonita Review it now


Featured article removal candidates
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark Review now
Rudolf Vrba Review now
Michael Tritter Review now
Middle Ages Review now
Emmy Noether Review now
The Notorious B.I.G. Review now
Isaac Brock Review now
Mariah Carey Review now
Pokémon Channel Review now
Concerto delle donne Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Happy Holidays

"Everything is Going to be Alright" artwork, Christchurch Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand
Everything is Going to be Alright, Martin Creed, 2015.
Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. I wish you a happy holiday and good health!
Possibly (talk)

DYK for William Cline Borden

On 6 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Cline Borden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Cline Borden wrote the first American textbook on X-rays? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Cline Borden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Cline Borden), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QAI

I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct. For moar private "happy new year" see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today proud of Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, glad to see it! Eddie891 Talk Work 14:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on mercy dog!

Congratulations! With 43,554 total views (and 3,630 views per hour), your hook on the brave mercy dogs is the most viewed DYK hook for quite some time. Accordingly, it has been placed at the top of the list at DYKSTATS January. It has also been inducted on the All-time DYK page view leaders list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cbl62! Fascinatingly, it also got over 100,000 views yesterday (presumably driven by a reddit TIL). I'm very happy the article has gotten some attention, it's one of my personal favorites. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my congratulations too. Your hooks get better and better! Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dana expeditions

On 10 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dana expeditions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after discovering a giant larva on the fourth Dana expedition, Anton Frederik Bruun said, "I believe in the sea serpent", and lectured on its possible existence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dana expeditions. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dana expeditions), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dana expeditions hook generated 5,390 page views and therefore joins mercy dog at DYKSTATS January. Keep up the great work. Cbl62 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of coverage

Hello Eddie! I'll like you to please bother clearing a doubt of mine relating to the notability of the subject of an article.

I recently nominated Deviprasad Dwivedi for deletion. Although i believe that Padma Shri Padma Bhushan is not a significant award on an international level, lets, for an instance, consider it a major award that is talked about on WP:ANYBIO. Then will the subject still be considered notable and its article be kept even if he has not received even minimal coverage? To be more straight-forward, does passing WP:ANYBIO overrule failing WP:SIGCOV?

My thoughts is that if the subject is a living person then passing WP:SIGCOV is must. Please have your say, if you don't mind, in the deletion discussion as well. Kindly Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're likely to get people with varying opinions on this, so note that this is just my opinion and not necessarily correct: ANYBIO is a curious guideline in many respects and you have to exercise common sense when interpreting it: for instance, what is a "dictionary of national biography or similar publication"? Do we consider an entry in the likes of The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (which was compiled by getting the subjects to fill out questionnaires) enough? What about in a highly specialized encyclopedia? (my answer to those last two questions would be "no" and "yes", respectively)
Speaking specifically to ANYBIO#1, let me use an example I'm familiar with: Medal of honor recipients in the American Civil War. Is the MOH the US Armed Services highest award? yes. Is a Medal of Honor inherently enough for a stand-alone article? I, and many others as well, would argue: not without coverage to back it up. Many medals of honor were awarded for (comparatively) trivial things in the ACW, and there are more than a few cases where there just isn't enough verifiable information to write an article with.
ANYBIO doesn't, by itself, overrule a blatant failure of GNG -- in fact the section it's in specifically says meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. However, having a major award does make the existence of GNG-meeting coverage significantly more likely, particularly for this case, where I'm not familiar enough with the award and the region to say for sure that coverage does not exist in a different language. And, as you note, what a "well known and significant honor" is is subjective and there's not a clear consensus on what that means. Hopefully that's of some help? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's more helpful than i expected it to be. We need more editors like you here, Eddie. Cheers, Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 01:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln

I smell a WP:DYN entry coming soon. Please self-nominate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for commenting on my post at MilHist! I'm sorry Wikipedia was lonely for you. It's a pleasure to meet you. :) Neopeius (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleon's penis

Hello, I have passed Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleon's penis, but per your note upon nomination, if you want to suggest some ALTs I would be happy to look over them as well, so long as this is done before it is promoted. Best, CMD (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Index Thomisticus

On 16 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Index Thomisticus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Index Thomisticus covered 10,631,980 words in fifty-six volumes and took an estimated one million hours to create? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Index Thomisticus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Index Thomisticus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir: I wish to thank you for all your comments regarding the User Page Mark Allen Baker. Per your instructions I have worked hard to streamline the page and add a significant number of secondary or tertiary sources, paragraphs have been edited down, quote boxes have been removed and the entry reads far better thanks to all the comments and views of the Editors. The subject's career began when Wikipedia first started. The subject is now writing his 25th book and has sold numerous copies worldwide. PLEASE support this entry and keep it on Wikipedia. I will make any and all corrections you request. Have a great New Year and Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autograph3 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Creators Society

Hi Eddie891, I saw you closed this discussion as soft delete, however, I don't think it is eligible because it has been previously proposed for deletion and deleted, and was proposed for deletion again with this recent creation and removed by the page creator (though the recent PROD wouldn't have been eligible since the page was previously PRODDed). Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylsss--You're quite right and i'm rather embarrassed that I didn't catch that. I'll certainly be more careful going forward. However, I do feel that 'delete' was the right outcome here. Oh well, I've reverted my close. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vond

Hello! Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vond: soft redirection ≠ soft deletion. Anytime something is redirected to a local target within the mainspace, a hard redirect is used. Other cases, e.g. soft redirecting to a sister site such as wikt:, are handled by specialized templates. Moreover, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace. I went ahead and remedied the situation at vond; it is up to your discretion whether or not you would like to amend the closure. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Godsy, I've amended it. An embarrassing oversight on my part, one that I will be sure to not repeat. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Natalie Duddington has been accepted

Natalie Duddington, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John and William Merfold

Hi Eddie891, I have done what I can with the article, my apologies for not getting back to it sooner (see here for the reason for the delay). Looking at the Merfold article, I think it has real problems being taken further and may need failing; most of the text is not about the brothers, whose only claim to notability seems to be that they spoke out against their king in public a few times—almost nothing else can be said about them. Most of the text in the article could probably be taken out as being off-topic. Can you ping me back with your thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125, I'm afraid that I've come to a similar conclusion. There's also an unresolved citation needed tag, and this review has dragged out for far too long. I think a fail may be in order, though I hate to say fail-- because certainly good work has been done here and the article isn't in bad shape, but it just isn't a good article. Let me know where you want to go from here. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm walking away from it. Someone with better access to local history resources relating to the south of England needs to have a go at researching the Merfolds and their fate, although there may never be enough material out there to do the job. Imo it fails on criteria 3 and possible 6 as well. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New draft for Matador Network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matador_Network

This page was previously deleted by this user, but a new article has since been created adhering to the Wikipedia citation standards. The article is currently not marked as being reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missamelia5 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't review drafts upon request. It will make its way though the queue. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess

Hello, an uninvolved editor named Buidhe closed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com some time ago with the consensus for option 2 but somehow he used the explanation for option 3 in this [1]. That caused some confusion and then some editors in favour of option 1 complained about it here at User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure. Then Buidhe changed his closure 2 weeks later in this [2], again, and disregarded votes. He gave the explanation for why he changed the closure and disregarded votes 2 weeks later here at the complaint section User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_12#RFC_closure again. Apperantly he thought 5 options were confusing for editors who voted in the RfC and other editors perhaps voted for wrong options without knowing. So he didn't come to any straightforward conclusion and in the end the closure has become a mess that didn't close anything or reflect the consensus outcome of the RfC (or anything at all for one option or the other) although it was a pretty easy and short one with a rather clear rough consensus.

It would be far better if an experienced administrator like you closed the RfC once and for all, and erase this mess the closing editor caused because it affects a lot of articles in the Wiki and cause edit wars that rely on that RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.169.101 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. 1) It's out of my comfort zone, 2) there are users far more qualified than myself to respond to this, 3) I wouldn't call myself an 'experienced' administrator when it comes to RfC closures such as this one, 4) I don't have the time or interest, 5) this reeks of block evasion or something else above my paygrade. courtesy ping to Buidhe. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Wbm1058#RSN / RfC: Sherdog.com Closure Mess. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wbm1058. And here I was, thinking I was special... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite unfortunate that the discussion was run with different options than are usually used at the board. Any closure with regard to the nonstandard options risks confusing those who are looking at the closure but don't realize that the options are different than those usually used. I do think that my closure was the best way to compromise between users who believed that it was fully reliable and others who argued that it was less reliable than standard newsorgs such as ESPN (keeping in mind WP:NOTAVOTE). (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

building preps

Hey, Eddie! I'd be happy to help you through building your first prep, if you like! Building preps is really good experience for admins who want to work at DYK or ERRORs. It is a bit daunting at first, but once you've done a few you see that it's really just a puzzle you're putting together, and it's actually quite fun. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Thanks for the offer! I'd appreciate any advice you may have on getting started. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! You've got lots of experience nomming/reviewing. The person building the prep is trying to build a balanced prep, which means no more than 4 US hooks (and preferably 2-3 if we aren't currently overwhelmed with US hooks), generally no more than one from any other country, 4 bios/4 non bios (in alternating order), ideally no more than 1 on any subject if possible -- music, military, biology, whatever. You also need to pay attention to length, as if all the hooks are short or all are long, the MP will have an awkward blank space. And ideally each set alternates starting with a bio/non-bio in the image slot, so that if Prep 1 had a bio, Prep 2 gets a non-bio. And of course the final hook is the "quirky" slot.
The first thing to do is check to see if there are any special occasion requests for the date (when we're in two-a-days, take into account whether there are time zones where that hook wants to be in the daytime; for instance, a hook mostly of interest to the US should run during US daytime) and slot those in (or reserve space for them if the hook is still being reviewed.)
Most prep builders will attempt to build an entire prep, although sometimes you'll get stuck and leave a slot open, hoping someone else will fill it or something good for that slot will be reviewed by then. Most prep builders start with the image slot. For each slot, you scan the list of approved noms (generally top to bottom, as we want to get those older ones slotted), looking for something that works in your prep. When you find one, you do a review; how complete it needs to be is something you'll pick up as you become experienced. When I see that both the nom and the reviewer are highly experienced at DYK and the article is GA, I know all I need to do is check to make sure the hook is cited to the sentence. When I see that both the nom and the reviewer are inexperienced at DYK, I know I'm going to need to do a full review. Sometimes I need to ask for another alt or for corrections to be made before I can move. Once you've reviewed, you move the hook to the prep, then start again.
The main guidelines and instructions are at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook.
Let me know when you start building and I'll watch your progress. As you can see from the above, it's a lot of stuff to consider. Prep building is an art, and it takes some time to learn how to do it well. But if puzzles appeal to you, you may find you really like it. —valereee (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, Thank you! how does something like what I've put together at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 look? I removed c. 1510 from the first hook, and am not sure that "attempted buyer" is really a valid phrasing. I'm also not sure what to put as a 'quirky' hook-- would something like Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd Cow work? And of course, if this is the stuff I noticed, I'm sure that there is more I missed. Let me know what's what, please. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Eddie! Yes, I think Crowd Cow could work as a quirky. I think you did a good job balancing the hooks in general, although to me that looks like an extremely western set -- which, as we're enwiki, sometimes is what we have available to us -- but it's also very easy for an unconscious bias to creep in! You might look at whether or not there's an item or two from Asia/Africa/South America that you could swap in. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to mention -- when you're building a prep, always look for hooks by other prep builders, as prep builders cannot promote their own hooks or ones they've reviewed, and some of prep builders are fairly prolific nominators and reviewers. Other prep builders will do the same for you, as you can't promote hooks you've already touched. As an admin, you can move to queue a prep that includes a hook you nom/reviewed, but you shouldn't move a prep you were the primary builder of. —valereee (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee you're definitely right. I considered Template:Did you know nominations/Manek Premchand, but there's already one hook focusing on a film so I thought it would be too much. Many of the non-Western hooks are images or have unresolved issues. . . I swapped a south American hook in and I can use Template:Did you know nominations/Zéna M’Déré in as the quirky one instead. What do you think about that? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol I love Zena M'Dere as a quirky! Yes, both those changes are great! :) And yes, sometimes it's not easy to balance by western/other areas, we can only use what people submit to us! :) —valereee (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee If someone is looking for a non-US bio to promote, there is Template:Did you know nominations/Agitu Ideo Gudeta. On January 17, Yoninah said on my talk page to wait for at least another week of the article being stable. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Terry Grosz

On 25 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Terry Grosz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American conservation officer Terry Grosz busted an illegal snagging boat on the Eel River by waiting in the water and getting reeled in? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Terry Grosz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Terry Grosz), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War identification?

You're a military history person, as I recall—could you or one of your watchers help me figure out which war is referred to in the following (original text here). I'm trying to reconstruct the history of a 19th-century mission over at Draft:Seneca mission. (Text of the draft is a total mess atm, so don't worry if it makes no sense.)

During the 7 first years of Mr. Hyde's residence among the Indians [beginning, I assume, in 1821], he seemed to labor almost in vain. He suffered much from ill health, was entirely unacquainted with the language, and labored under many disadvantages from its acquisition. The war, which commenced soon after his arrival, greatly impeded the prosperity of the mission.

This is in upstate New York, near Buffalo. Am I just gobsmackingly ignorant? I can't think of a war that would have been happening in the early 1820s in that area, and neither History of New York (state) nor Military history of the United States is giving me much of a clue. Probably my paltry history education talking; any hints appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings as you may or may not be aware, I live in upstate new york (near Syracuse, New York, as it happens) so if you need help tracking down sources for this article, I can probably be of assistance. I think you're looking for the War of 1812 which had major influence and impacts in the region, notably after the attempted Invasion of Canada. Your source says In 1811, Rev. John Alexander and Mr. Jabez B. Hyde were sent to this tribe [...] During the first 7 years of Mr. Hyde's residence among the Indians, [...] The war, which commenced soon after his arrival, greatly impeded the prosperity of the mission. 1812 -- soon after 1811. Let me know if I missed something entirely or can be of any more assistance. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thanks. I guess I must have had the dates confused; the War of 1812 certainly makes sense. And yes, any/all assistance welcome! I've managed to find quite a few sources in the PD which I'm cobbling together at the moment, but I fear I'm a bit out of my depth so would certainly be open to help/suggestions. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Seneca mission if you'd like to take a look. Still developing, but I thought it was done enough to move out of draftspace. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings Looks like some very good work you've done there! I'll take a closer look later today. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—and, of course, no rush! Only if you're interested. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Napoleon's penis

On 25 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Napoleon's penis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Napoleon's penis, which was cut off after his death, has been described as comparable to a "piece of leather or a shriveled eel"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleon's penis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Napoleon's penis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln

On 26 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Walt Whitman called one of his lectures on Abraham Lincoln "the culminating hour" of his life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 credits

Hi Eddie. Just noticed on Prep 7, I think you've accidentally credited me with an article on me instead of The Troopie. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're quite right. Should be fixed now-- Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (By the way, good job on Napoleon's penis! I've added it to the all-time list for you). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

DYK Template issue

Eddie891, regarding the DYK review for Willem Krul (Dutch Navy officer). I changed (moved) the article title from Willem Krull to Willem Krul as I discovered that this is how Willem signed his name. However, when you click on the Willem Krul template now it says the template does not exist. The template is still listed in the DYK nomination page under January 14, but again, when you click on 'review or comment' it says the template does not exist. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It exists at Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Krull (Dutch Navy officer). the DYK template should stay at the old name AFAIK. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the redirect didn't include the template. I'd like to move the article title later, if it doesn't create issues, as again, this is how Krul spelled his name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just saw that the article title still has the new name, but the template is back to where it was before my last edit to it. In any case, thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Justice and Jurisprudence

On 30 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Justice and Jurisprudence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the writing and publication of Justice and Jurisprudence in 1889 has been described as "the Magna Carta of black people"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Justice and Jurisprudence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Justice and Jurisprudence), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hello there. I notice you did a lot of work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020 so I'm just reaching out for some help please. I'm currently reviewing Tesla, Inc. for GA, but it's been almost a week and I've been trying my best but I've still got quite a way to go. I feel like the quality of the review has been deteriorating as I've been further bogged down. I was just asking if you would be able to review some of the article (perhaps a couple of sections or so) and then I can hopefully finish the review off later. If you don't want to, I completely understand. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 I'm unfortunately not sure I have the time to help out at the moment-- I've got quite few projects of my own that need finishing up, and the article is outside of my area of expertise. I can try to check in later this week, but I'm not optimistic I'll be able to carve out the time. Really sorry and best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not to worry. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebs Akintade

Hello you deleted my Wikipedia page as a Presenter. Due to Covid and so much I have the independent links that prove I am a noteworthy presenter at the BBC, host for the Landscape Institute awards, host of National Park City awards in London and much more besides. I can’t add the links as the page has been deleted. How can I appeal to get the page ack and make the necessary amendments? Ebuaki (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddie891&oldid=1003921080"