User talk:Srich32977

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28: 60 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Thank you

Thanks for everything @ Chickbama2316 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Durham has been accepted

Richard Durham, 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!

- GA Melbourne (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GA. I've been around for some time, and I thought an AFC would be interesting. And to show my thanks I'll do some work on spiffing up other articles on the list. – S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January music

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent assessments, copy edits, destubbing and WikiProject tagging of cemeteries since about the third of this month—your edits are much appreciated! I am surprised I have not seen you around here before. Goodluck on your journey to edit every single cemetery on Wikipedia, and have a wonderful day in general! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 10:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you Luna for your kind appreciation. I think you are right -- I do want to tweak and improve every single cemetery on WP. A Barnstar is just the right bit of goading to keep me digging away at the endeavor. – S. Rich (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at "Cementerio Catolico" seeking to Clean up/copyedit Adding/improving reference(s)

Hi. Saw your edit at here, and am wandering if a similar process couldn't be applied to the 651 cites here? Mercy11 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! With an article that long (TLDR) a lot of work is pending. In my edits I usually start with clearing clutter. (E.g., fix small details.) Next, in your case, I recommend re-doing the page (p.x --> p. x) citations. That clears the way for the drop down "citation tool" that gives a listing of the duplicate cites. In my article edits the corrections were fewer and much more simple. I saw the duplicate cites, and did "ref name" replacements for the duplicates. Then I put in { {rp|12xx} } for the pages. (Or you can put in the "rp|xxx" first, and then swap out the full cite with the "ref name".) So, @Mercy11: I'll look to see if my suggestions are useful. Thanks for asking! – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February stories

Thank you for improving articles in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for change to Mount Hope Cemetery (Lansing, Michigan)

Hello,

I'm curious on this edit to Mount Hope Cemetery (Lansing, Michigan). Do you have a citation for the change from ~23,800 graves to 25,000+ graves? Otherwise, that fact would hang without any evidence. I will state that I agree the cite could live in the body versus the infobox. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FindaGrave has 25,000+ names listed. (But its a WP no-no.) I don't see 23,800 in the text. Let's just put ~24,000 in the infobox. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: I added back in the cite and detail. The detail was at the top of the citation you removed. Please don't add details from FindAGrave without a WP:RS. Appreciate the cleanup! Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says weigh "each source" to determine reliability. With Mt. Hope FAG has 455 listings with GPS coordinates. That means someone has stood next to the grave with a smartphone and plugged in the GPS. Of the Mt. Hope "famous" names, 3 graves have GPS. For example, Merv Pregulman has GPS, 2 grave photos, and plot data. The photos are dated and the contributors are named. (Only FAG administrators (staff editors) can change any data on the famous names.) In terms of weighing the source FAG is very good for this particular "famous" grave. Now for Joe Schmo at Find a Grave, the info is more sketchy, but Joe does not have a WP article (... yet). – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there, I myself edit FindAGrave and have stood in the cold resetting the GPS on my phone. However, I know it to not be a reliable source, per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, so I do my best to remove citations when I see those that use it as a reference. From what I know, we can't willynilly add in details from doing our own independent research, including referencing that statistic on FindAGrave's website. In the same vein, the source I referenced could have either interviewed the cemetery and got that count or referenced findagrave in 2017 to get that count, and I can't prove/disprove either point, but lean on Wikipedia's guidance that we expect Lansing State Journal to be a reliable source. My only comment/suggestion is please don't add those statistics without a reliable source, as FindAGrave, specific page or aggregate page, is not a reliable source, but also ask that you please not remove statistics that were reliably sourced. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Mason Loomis

Hi Srich32977. This edit you made to Talk:John Mason Loomis actually seemed to cause the entire Wikipedia article Find a Grave to be transcluded into that talk page thread per WP:COLON#With templates. I'm not sure what the "indexing problem" you were trying to fix was, but adding the colon to that template syntax told the software to transclude the article onto that talk page. I only noticed this because the non-free image being used in "Find s Grave" were flagged as being used outside of the article namespace. I tried to fix both problems by converting {{Find a Grave}} to a url link, and hopefully that resolves the indexing issue. If, by chance, you were also using the colon trick in templates on other pages, you might want to retrace your steps to make sure the same type of article transclusion hasn't happened.-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks for catching my error! 2. Double thanks for fixing it!! And 3. Triple thanks for letting me know!!! I did do the colon trick on some other templates so I'll go back as you recommend. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noggle Cemetery deletion

I'm not sure what I need to do to get this page kept.

Noggle is a real cemetery and is notable for being one of the oldest cemeteries in the area, and it has very early burials from several prominent families who contributed to the community during the Settlement Period. It is small, and landlocked, and has a findagrave page as well.

What about it disqualifies it from being on Wikipedia? Capouch (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave is not a good source in order to establish WP:N. (It's got more than 500,000 cemeteries listed.) The "burden of proof" shifts over to you: Are there notable burials? (E.g., families that have names listed in WikiPedia?) Is it recognized as an National or State or Local "historical site"? Old graves alone is not enough. – S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if local "notability" isn't sufficient, I guess off it goes. It is a pioneer local cemetery and I can easily make the case for its local significance. Pretty much none of those references are online. The cemetery was platted in the 1840s and the burials don't go much past the turn of the 20th century.

This is a stiff, stiff disincentive for people to contribute. But I get where you're coming from. We want everything on WP to be nationally significant. I spent a lot of time here, and I know how true that statement is.

Not a happy camper, but also not naive about the WP police work. Capouch (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]