User talk:Epeefleche

This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Albums.

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Wikipedia editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go fuck yourself", use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron”.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Wikipedia:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Brixton Mosque

On January 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brixton Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Colleen LaRose

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen LaRose, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

This link is now dead: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 -- it's not in archive.org.

I could have said this in the talk section of Begg's article, but I wanted to add here that I'm wondering if Cageprisoners may be cleaning up some of their tracks.

I came across this link two years ago. It's a discussion board. On that page they talk about 21st Century Crusaders. The only thing really notable is that it had a link where you could download the entire film. As you can see, the page is now password protected, as is the one taking you to the film.

In light of the disappearing pages, I just used webcitation.org to archive the ones that we have linked in the article that weren't yet deleted. I haven't cited that in the article yet, although that doesn't necessarily matter at the moment. Webcitation has a function to tell you whether or not it's been archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar for the Moazzam Begg article

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	for your additions, editing, and Herculean clean-up on the Moazzam Begg article! It is truly impressive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibn al-Salah; Thanks

Thanks for your edit on Ibn al-Salah, I was beginning to think I was the only who ever reads never mind edits some of the pages I work on.--Supertouch (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ressam group

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1_SxOuUHmIC&dq=%22abu+jaffar%22+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s From page 320 onward] has some great information on the various players in the Ressam group. You could add the reference to almost each of the articles, as it discusses each of them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Shall take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you think the Montreal mosque (Assuna ... spelled various ways in English ... attracts 1500 to Friday prayers) is worth an article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally fairly inclusive when it comes to churches/schools having articles; unless they written largely to "smear" the group. So if you're going to include a "list of notable persons who attended", be sure to balance it out with some positive stories from the media/books as well...basically, the group should be pleased to see they have a WP article...not angry. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely the way it works, is it. We don't write articles to please the subject. Otherwise, for example, all criminals would rightfully have their articles deleted. What we do, which I'm happy to do with your help if you like, is reflect what is in the RSs. In other words, if x percent of the material in RSs is material that they would be happy to see, we should make certain that x percent of the article is of that ilk. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering, seeing as you seem well versed in wiki rules on citing, editing etc., it would be great if you could have a look at this article [1] and the editing taking place with regards to lack of notability. Perhaps I am not good at explaining. My understanding is that secondary references are needed for the purpose of notability which is why primary sources can not stand alone. In this case there appear no notability for the insertions made. These issues were already dealt with a few days ago but today reversions have taken place. Fragma08 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I'll take a closer look. But its fairly clear that a POV editor is making inappropriate edits. As to the rule on primary sources, without going back to double-check the wording, the general rule is that: a) they are not indicia of notability; but b) that said, appropriate non-puffery, non-controversial language can be taken from primary sources re the subject of the article (POV editors often try to violate this restriction), and it can also be cited as statements of the subject of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also for the clarification, because I recall how difficult it is to add primary sources as a source of direct statement from article subject himself/herself. So I would argue same applies here as there appears to be no difference w.r.t. use of primary sources. Further some content belong in separate articles of their own. But have a look when you can. Fragma08 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer's infobox

I am unable to remove the blank line without screwing up the first bulletpoint. You may want to talk with those who code the template. If it is changed let me know because I am the main editor on at least a half dozen college basketball player pages.

Done (hope I found the right place) here.

What about the unsightly blank space to the right of the new rookie box -- can that be addressed?

Also, can the needless extra blank line above "Note" within that box be deleted? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Template_talk:Infobox_NCAA_Athlete or the help desk are the places to go. Aske them all your questions and let me know about any resulting questions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to follow my lead with Scheyer. The following are the guys I am the main editor of: Turner, Collins, Manny Harris, Demetri McCamey, DeShawn Sims, E'Twaun Moore, John Shurna, and Kevin Coble. Watch those Chicago-area or Michigan guys and you will see what I think is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clever fix.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the standard should be to bulletpoint each line or not. As I work on Collins' article, it is getting difficult to see the multiline honors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- I agree with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have two more formatting questions. 1. In Collins' championships, should I merge the multiple years on one line as they are now or should I go back to separate line for each year? 2. Do you think the tournaments are laid out correctly or should we give each a line including result (such as #2 seed Elite eight, #1 seed championship, or what have you)?

I've left out a number of Scheyer awards (e.g., less notable papers) and records ... without checking, I think on the records front limiting to top-10 for example for ACC/Duke. And I haven't listed every single tournament he has been in, as that strikes me as not sufficiently notable, even though the infobox calls for it. With Duke as the winningest team ever, I think that's ok. I don't interpret record as meaning he has to be number one, but rather as top-10. One general comment I see from time to time is "hey, person x is more important, and doesn't have an article, or as long an article, or we don't reflect his records or awards." The answer I generally come to, is let's improve that person's article. College basketball player articles I've seen are generally in suprisingly poor shape, especially given the number of views they get. Of course, if it is true cruft, like the infobox saying "Scheyer led the team for 2009-10 in the following eight categories, and here are his numbers", then I would agree it is proper to scale back the infobox. But, as I said, I will take a look and give a think, with your helpful comments in mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- without even looking at it, I think that the NBA infobox will have different criteria, leading to culling. Agree we should revisit the culling issue upon infobox change. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 2000 points, top-10 in points scored is notable. It is the kind of thing you could easily mention in the WP:LEAD. My thinking on articles is that the vast majority of people only read the WP:LEAD and Infobox. Let's get key information into those areas. For Scheyer, at this point in his career, he could have a full WP:LEAD (4 paragraphs is the max) if so desired. I would lay it out as A general accomplishment paragraph, 1 paragraph on high school, 1 on college team accomplishments and 1 on college individual accomplishments. When he goes pro the two college paragraphs will need to be merged and so you might want to keep him at 3 right now. In the LEAD (and Infobox now that I think of it), you don't need to mention USBWA All-District after he is USBW All-American, following your greatedst accomplishment principle. In the LEAD, you could mention as many as five of his most important statistical accomplishments. 2000 points and its rankings could go there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be willing to work with you on filling out the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. you should also note, that you can request image consent from photographers on www.flickr.com and get this guy a decent image. Look at the images of all the guys that I do. I hound the flickr guys to re-license their images. About half of non-AP and non-school newspaper photographers will consent. Even about 20% of school newpaper photogs will consent. If you want, I can give you a copy of my consent requests.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Sure -- that would be great. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw at some point during the game that Scheyer is 22/24 in Free throws during the tournament. It seems that he may take over the Duke all time NCAA tournament free throw percentage lead (min 35 att). Do you know how he is doing on the Duke (and possibly ACC) NCAA tournament lists?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that as well. No idea, I'm afraid. Do you have a prediction for Monday?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I predict Scheyer will tie the consecutive games record. P.S. If you are a really big fan of Scheyer you might compile his NCAA tourney game logs on ESPN and see how he is doing against the Duke records, because he may have the Duke NCAA Tourney free throw percentage record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good one! You are good at this prediction thing. I predict Singler will cover Hayward--and neutralize him, that Butler will be over-anxious on defense, that Duke will capitalize by first getting some easy layups off good passes, and then start sinking the threes to put them away. Scheyer will lead both teams in assists, Zou will lead both in offensive rebounds, and one of the Duke guards will lead both teams in scoring. There, I said it ... eight or nine predictions.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Duke career NCAA Tournament FT% record is only 86% by Mark Alerie. Even JJ Redick only shot 85.7% in the tournament.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jawa Report

Good job on the new page. In the intro it says in 1994, I'm guessing that should be 2004 as Nick Berg was not killed after the war in Iraq. Also, is JW a reliable source per Wikipedia standards?--Supertouch (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. You're absolutely right. As far as RS, that hasn't yet been addressed. Seems to me it is more of an RS than the Electronic Intifada, which some editors appear to be happy to embrace. But still not as high level a source as the NYT or the NEFA Foundation. I personally would tend to steer away from it at the moment, but I may be wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

street

I initially made the edit on a "gut" basis; I've been around the Internet a long time (pre-web), and have seen "facts" like that have very bad outcomes, e.g. an acquaintance who had an armed activist drive cross-country and show up at his workplace, which another person had mentioned in an abortion-related forum the two were active in.

Following your serious query, I went looking for policy.

• First, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The remainder of the policy is also relevant, particularly "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." and "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability."
• Second, WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I judge that the street name is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; the edit comment is based on one of the 5 pillars.
• Third, WP:NPOV: the nutshell "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." On a proportionate basis, how important is the street he lived on?

Studerby (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I was guessing it was a gut basis. Nice work in doing such a professional job looking for support for the gut feeling. My gut reaction is that different people have different gut reactions, and (moreso elsewhere, admittedly) I sometimes see editors cloak their gut reactions in similar verbiage. As I said, I'm not passionate about the issue in that particular case. My view in general is that if RSs report it, it generally meets the above, just as the name of the former spouse of a suspected killer or their current relatives would meet them if reported in RSs, or the place they are employed, or the city or state or country in which they live (all of which are routinely mentioned in all such bios, without any discussion, and could be attacked as inappropriate in the strictest reading of what you cite -- this is, after all, clearly only a question of degree, as the general place they live is routinely deemed relevant), etc.. The same issues arise in all such instances. Just my opinion. But we don't have a tussle on this particular edit, just an intellectual inquiry. I think based on your research, your response, and my response, it still ultimately comes down to editorial judgment, and in the event there were a tussle on another article there would be a consensus discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Editorial judgment" inherently can't be codified, and we're all going to use our gut from time to time - no one has time to research and cite policy for every single edit. However, I also just went back to the version I edited; neither RS referenced in that paragraph has the street (at this moment), so the information was also unsourced, apparently. I'm suspecting that somebody interpolated that from the criminal complaint, which is NOT an RS for all purposes - it's a primary source, inherently one sided, etc.; certainly not subject to the "editorial judgment" that a proper secondary source uses. I generally shy away from controversy, but I think policy on this is absolutely crystal clear and this is one edit I'd go to the mat for, if it was needed.

In the cases you mention, where RSs have included reference to relations or acquaintances of the article subject, I suspect you'll find that those individuals have usually involved themselves in the reporting by becoming information sources on the topic. You won't see very many statements in current event reportage in RSs like "[the suspect] married Jane Doe (born 1955 in Boston) in 1967, had children John (1970), Janette (1971), Chang and Eng (1973) and divorced in 1974. He subsequently married and divorced Floozy Mcsleazy, a pole dancer, in 1980, and cohabitated with a Ima Nicegirl from 1985 to 1992." Instead you get, "His wife, Jane Doe, said: 'Billy-Wayne was such a nice quiet person. I can't believe he kept a collection of human ears in our garage.'". The wife's name is then relevant to the notability, as a source of reported information relevant to the notability of the subject. Or there's some sort of at-least-arguable relevant-to-the-story event involving the relative; in the article under discussion, a protective order and the inability to serve divorce papers arguably are facts that tell us something about the subject's life relevant to his notability; folks with "issues" are thought to be more motivated to do things outside the norm. However, in the reference cited, the wife also injected herself into the story and made several statements in support of subject; that only the negative material relating to the wife is included is an obvious WP:NPOV problem, and which rather seems to undermine any "include all the facts" argument. Studerby (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Jawa Report

On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Jawa Report, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hey there. Looking at this case it appeared that some people affiliated with Mohammed Daniel's were commenting on the deletion review, rather than it all being one person. The chances are that the check came back as likely because Mohammed Daniels knows all these people, so they were all in the same area, or editing form the same company IP, however, they would not appear to be sock puppets. This conclusion is largely based upon this edit: 1. There would also not appear to be any violation of meat puppetry, as Daniels does not appear to have asked these users to support him, and whether or not their has been any correspondence between them is undefined.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. First, maybe I'm naive, but why do we think that the person who left that comment was actually MD? Second, I never said that it was MD himself who was socking -- just that a sockpuppetry appeared to be taking place. Even if we assumed that MD himself had left the message (which is not clear to me), it appears that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is taking place, as evidenced both in my suspicion and the checkuser results here -- note, I had no way of knowing w/the named accounts that they were in the same location.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We think that because they said so. I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page, contrary to what the other users there where doing (I could have believed that they were lying had they been saying that the page should be kept, but saying that it should be deleted just doesn't fit in). If you wish to press the meatpuppetry issue the AN/I is a better venue than SPI, but I personally wouldn't bring the matter up, as their does not appear to be much active disruption. But in the end it's up to you. Also, I know that you had no way of knowing where the named accounts were editing from, I didn't expect you to. :) Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"We think that because they said so". Really? I'm somewhat surprised.

As with this edit I just saw, it happens all the time, for sundry reasons. The reasons one may impersonate another are many, but the easy answer is the most typical reason is to get others to take the steps they would take if the real person were saying those things. As in the example I just cited to. You say "I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page". Imagine that the person saying it wants the page deleted, and thinks that the best way to do it is to impersonate him, and say that.

The reliability of the person being who they say they are is nil -- which is why the project affords off-wiki means to verify if the person is who he says he is.

I would ask that you reconsider the result in light of what I've said, and take action on what the checkuser indicates are likely socks, or ask another sysop to review. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mason Plumlee

On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mason Plumlee, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

[2]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was very impressed by your rebuttal to an administrator that wrote, "[a certain sysop] is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or [judgment] of the project's mores, I'll be backing [the sysop]." -- Rico 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Eric Ely from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New York energy law

You seem to be everywhere. Thanks for the minor edits. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Scheyer will be the only All-American or first team All Big Ten Chicago area player that is not a WP:GA pretty soon. You might want to nominate him at WP:GAC so he can join his peers (Evan Turner, Sherron Collins, Demetri McCamey and E'Twaun Moore).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You can have as many articles at WP:GAC at one time as you want. You do not have to put an article through GAC before sending it to WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .. Materialscientist just said I did have to go through GA first..--Epeefleche 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You surely do not. If you are shooting for May 6, you should go straight to FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the helpful advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I could take a look, though it is unlikely it will get through both the GAN and FAC processes in time to be nominated for the May 6 slot. GA is optional if you'd rather just go to FA to cut down on time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed Jon Scheyer for GA and placed it on hold pending some improvements to the article. Details can be found at Talk:Jon Scheyer/GA1. Thank you, –MuZemike 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

John Scheyer GA

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game. Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team. He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

Apologies

I apologize again for what I said and how I said it. I was rushed, and in my mind I melded the two ANI threads together so did not see the need to notify you. Before you replied I noted that Annoynmous, I and other editors had committed the same or worse error in saving the offending statement in the article itself. I noted that it does appear that you did accidentally make the same error in the later post to RSN I pointed out at ANI, though; just pointing this out in the spirit of misery loving company. Regards,John Z (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I would still ask that you raise it at the relevant AN/I, as I've requested.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

article

Hi Epeefleche ,
Noticed you fixing the references on this article. Just wanted to point out that 6 refs (i was going give neumbers but they keep changing) are all the same titled "U.S. citizen from Pakistan arrested in Times Square bomb case" that's a total of 19 cites for the one reference if you wish to combine them. Cheers! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. If I get a chance (may not) I'll try to figure out how to fix it. It likely involves just figuring out which refs to replace with which ref. Sadly, my automated ref fixes aren't picking up and combining the dupes -- I had thought they would. If you can figure it out and wish to combine them, that would be great. Or someone using an automated tool that picks up dupes (and is looking at this page) might do us a kindness and address it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you seem to be incapable of working with other editors who you've had a "dispute" with, perhaps you should avoid articles where they are editing. I know it's a particular interest of yours, and to say this is a dispute now is a bit overdramatic. I removed some text with no reference to you or anybody in particular, yet you saw it neccessary to undo it, with a gab at me. Now, if that's how you want to do this, by all means, knock yourself out. But it will waste everybody's time, including yourself. I don't know what you're trying to get at, making sly remarks about me, but cut it out. Grsz¹¹ 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Grsz -- perhaps it's my uber foul mood given some recent interactions. Let me tell you how I endeavor to edit. If I make a statement of my view of an application of policy, I try my best to make a statement that I believe. And that if it were quoted back to me, in support -- say -- of the baseball team I like least -- I would still come to the same conclusion. And be happy for it to be quoted back at me. Yesterday, not for the first time, I had an editor w/whom I had been dealing evidence quite dramatically that he was doing the opposite. Completely result-oriented blather. I know this because he accused me quite publicly and dramatically at an AN/I of disparaging two living people. Only ... when it turned out that it was his colleague who had inserted the statement in a BLP -- not me -- he failed to make the same complaint about his colleague's mis-step. Not a peep. Despite my multiple entreaties. So ... when I arrive at a page that feels to me like more of the same, I'm somewhat more direct that I might otherwise be. Then again, I think of tended to be direct with you, so perhaps that is an overstatement in your case. In any event -- no, I don't feel that I own the page. But I do feel that what I said is completely appropriate, and I'm troubled as I said to see two colleagues who always seem to be on the opposite side of these sorts of issues. So, that's where I'm coming from. And I thought I would signal that I feel strongly, so as not to confuse anyone as to whether I'm just looking for an intellectual discussion because I'm bored, or whether I feel deeply about the issue. Anyway, apologies if I approached the county line of rudeness in my directness. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, and thank you. I was just taken aback when you seemed to be accusing me of continuing an ancient issue, which certainly was not my intention. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I actually have an account (winampman) that I rarely log into. Just too lazy sometimes... but I'll try to remember to login next time. :-) 99.41.54.55 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Date changes with reflinks... ; Apparent Reflinks Problem

I noticed some of the article dates getting borked up and I assumed an IP vandal, but after lots of searching I realized it's reflinks doing something strange, as in this edit [3]. I don't know how that software works, and I think an IP fixed all of those date changes, but you might have a look at it and see if you know why it did that, and if not, maybe use it as a good bug report. Kind of a sneaky error that crept in there. Notwithstanding, I can only second what I said earlier. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more detail: The changes don't seem to be limited to that edit. The July 2007 date (which is obviously impossible) was changed there, but IP 99.41.54.55 changed a lot more back that all were strangely changed to a July date (although different days and years). I can only guess those were the same sort of error which makes me think it's probably a software error. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd. Tx. Tx much! I've left word here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Lee (British politician)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is George Lee (British politician). Please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).--Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestions for Jimbo

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.[4][5][6]

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale

Would you place a {{db-author}} on User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale? The userspace draft violates WP:UP#COPIES. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you have edited since I asked you a question. Please reply to it. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Cunard -- don't get your underwear in a wad.

Perhaps, in real life, people drop whatever they are doing when you communicate with them, and make you # 1 in the world, the sun around which they orbit. God help your spouse or significant other. The fact that I "edited" reflects the fact that I was busy doing something else. Why you would think that you come before what I was doing -- or before any other pages of the 100s I have watch-listed -- I can't imagine. But, as a clue for your real-world life, what is most important to you at any point in time may, just possibly, be the most important code-red "sky-is-falling" event in the world to every other breathing being.

Now -- what is your issue, as to what you are requesting be done, can you explain in more detail why, and the reason it is urgent -- so much so that you left me the second "you've been editing, but not responded to my note of 15 minutes ago" message?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your criticism into account and will modify my editing style accordingly. Cunard (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes for a lovely weekend. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you have a lovely weekend as well. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Shubert Alley for DYK

Would you mind if I nominated Shubert Alley for DYK? I was thinking of using the following for a hook: DYK SA was originally built as a fire exit between the Shubert Theatre and and Booth Theatre? What do you think? --Morenooso (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I was thinking DYK, and that hook was one of three ideas I had in mind. Alternatives I had thought of were

• Moments after Faisal Shahzad's failed 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, a surveillance video caught images of him walking through Shubert Alley; and
• The One Shubert Alley memorabilia store in the alley is a converted former dressing room of the Booth Theatre.

Why not offer all three, and let them pick? Also, you should say between the theatres and the Astor Hotel, I believe ... best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll start the nom now and see if I can figure out how to do all three. I kind of like your second one better. It really grabbed my attention. --Morenooso (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more current. I actually liked that best as well. You might list it first.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done but I think I left a little mess. I couldn't make the alt text display. I wanted it to read SA in 2007 as per the pic description. I like your first hook better but will let them pick. All three are good. I'm excited. I'm a Page Patroller and this is a new facet for what I do. Could you look at the nom and maybe clean up the mess for me? --Morenooso (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the hooks (handy dandy version just two noms down used) but I can't get the alt text to display. Grrr. --Morenooso (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed the alt text but not the right way. --Morenooso (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah ... I think alt text should be descriptive along the lines of "partially sunlit alley with buildings on the right and at end of street, and people walking".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the alt text trick yet. If you figure it out, you can modify the nom. --Morenooso (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not great at that. If I get a chance, will try to. Otherwise, you might ask one of the people who frequent DYK (just scroll through, and see who leaves many comments on the talk page) for assistance. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Coat-racking

Actually, I understand it fine thanks, since you had to told by a number of different editors that you didn't understand it in regards to that article, I suggest you step out of your greenhouse before you attempt to throw stones. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on her, write an article on her but we don't stick bios of other individuals within bio articles. If you are unhappy about this, I suggest you mention it on the talkpage, I suspect you will get the same response you got last time, you tried to coatrack an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not responded to my questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche I can sympathise with your editorial issues. It would appear that some editors delete the regularly clear the contents of their discussion page without using an one of the archiving options so as to conceal their editor dispute history from other editors especially the most recently to be upset by more recent editing activities. dolfrog (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fundementally very easy to understand when something is a coat-rack, it's not that obscures details about La Rose, but it provides nothing additional about La Rose - for example, how does it expand our understanding of the BLP Subject La Rose to know that Paulin-Ramirez changed the name of her son? How does it expand our understanding of La Rose that Paulin-Ramirez was getting married? etc etc. The relevent information about Paulin-Ramirez in the context of a bio of La Rose is covered in the previous paragraph. Why don't you simply take the deleted material and create a seperate article and link to it, it's sourced so not a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sports Review

Yasher koach on this article. I would like to nominate it for DYK. For a hook, something like: Sports Illustrated described the Jewish Sports Review "tireless in its service mission" to report on the role of Jews in sports? If you have a zippier idea, by all means . . . . Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

McDs

That is an interesting article. I think there is room on WP for high school all-american pages. If you can find the Parade and McD team, you could do something like what I am doing at 1991 College Baseball All-America Team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job there. I don't think I'll have time for that, but yours looks great.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

rules?

What rules did I break regarding my edits I did to Eugenics Record Office (the rockerfeller add)?