User talk:EricEnfermero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bugg's Sandbox Chaos[edit]

I know I did something that a vandal would do, but thank you for alerting me Bugg Bulborb (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Jets[edit]

any idea where the vandalism was emanating from? Probably a Patriots forum or maybe a radio show in New England. I'd like to see the articles you mentioned when you get the chance. Enigmamsg 20:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where the effort was organized, but here is one of several articles to pick up the issue. They all reported it as a Google Search issue, but WP is mentioned in at least one of the articles' comment sections. Doing a Google News search for Tom Brady owner still turns up the coverage of the erroneous search results, though the actual search results were corrected when we got a handle on our Jets entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the Google results were based off Wikipedia. I went to one forum and found this reacting to Google. Enigmamsg 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, it spread all over. [1] [2] [3] [4] Now users are dismayed that the incorrect info isn't coming up anymore. Enigmamsg 20:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It's amusing to me because Brady "owns" other teams more than the Jets. The Jets have beaten him several times in recent seasons, and the Jets even beat New England in the playoffs with Brady under center. Enigmamsg 20:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm just a little surprised that this many sportswriters jumped on this. I'm assuming they don't know where that Google search information comes from. I do feel bad that Google is getting the brunt of it and that it's being referred to as a "glitch". EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Few are aware of where the 'snapshot' information on Google, Bing, etc. comes from. Definitely not a glitch. Nothing they can do when trolls overwhelm Wikipedia. Enigmamsg 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Something similar just happened at Robert Kraft. Retribution for the vandalism to the Jets articles? Crazy. Enigmamsg 02:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe Mande[edit]

Why do you keep reverting the information about Joe Mande? It is not an opinion. It is cited by news sources. Some of the sources are interviews from Joe Mande himself. Mande is a self-described Internet troll. Wikipedia shouldn't let anyone hide behind Internet trolling simply because they have a following as a comedian. That's an occupational bias. It is important information to identify trolling in this new age of the Internet.

I beg to differ. The most important job of an encyclopedia is to neutrally put together information from reliable sources. When we try to shoehorn in information from iffy sources using creative wording to support some questionable assertions, that falls more under original research. Instead of being an important priority for an encyclopedia, original research (including the identification of people we think to be Internet trolls) is something to be avoided entirely. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

EricEnfermero, if you say Wikipedia doesn't label people things like "Internet troll" even though in this case Mande has previously identified himself as an Internet troll countless times then why do people like Kenneth McCarthy a.k.a Ken M, who also have gained a following through the Internet using comedy like Mande, have the title of "Internet troll" on their Wikipedia page? It sounds to me that you are not properly upholding Wikipedia objective standards, but are rather picking and choosing based on your personal bias. If you disagree, please explain? Otherwise, allow the change in simply giving Mande the title of Internet troll in addition to the other titles he claims. The Internet is not meant to be some of alternative comedy club stage because anybody can use the Internet.

I am going on good faith that you're a pretty intelligent person, and if you're as smart as I think you are, you'll be able to reread your last message above and see how silly it looks. When I tell you that neutral wording is the second of the five things Wikipedia wants us to really remember (known as the Five Pillars), I am certainly not saying that I have read and assessed all of Wikipedia's articles for neutrality. After all, there are >5.4 million of them. If I come across an article with a vague and unclear descriptor and there's an easy way to rewrite that in a professional tone, I should do it, even if there are other articles I haven't gotten to yet. This is really not the place to make a point about someone or to make an example of them; that's would be very unprofessional of us. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi EricEnfermero, I'm curious to know what part of the last message directed at you did you find the need to doubt the person's intelligence? Can you specifically quote the part that you found unintelligent? I understand Wikipedia's "neutral wording" policy and the fact that you can't monitor every single Wikipedia page but the previous comment was asking if a subject like "Ken M" can be titled an Internet troll on Wikipedia why can't "Joe Mande" who has admitted to being those words? Also, it's strange that in the same comment in which you mention professionalism, you open with this line "I am going on good faith that you're a pretty intelligent person, and if you're as smart as I think you are, you'll be able to reread your last message above and see how silly it looks." which could have been omitted entirely. Nonetheless, I think we can both agree that the subject being discussed is about as smart as the current U.S. President he makes fun of, using vulgarity much like his reality-show star President has done in the past. Although, I don't think the previous comments were about making Mande an example, but rather about being equal with everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.217.15.160 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's just it... even a not-so-close reading of my reply should indicate that I don't doubt the editor's intelligence. Lots of things could have been omitted in this sequence of events, starting with the assertion that we should add material to WP with the goal that a celebrity's unintelligent fans will see him the way a particular editor sees him. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All of you are giving this guy Joe Mande way too much attention than he deserves. He hasn't become moderately-known for his comedy but rather for mentioning the names of people who are actually famous on Twitter and/or in his stand-up, even recruiting ignorant athletes like Blake Griffin to be part of his gimmick. Mande is as successful as a comedian as Trump is as a politician. They both have the position they desired but got the position through gimmicks rather through any kind of skills. Mande is every definition of the words "Internet troll" and based on the cited sources has consistently been for years, no matter how much Wikipedia moderators want to make him appear to be just an innocuous comedian. Anyway, how about we stop giving Mande even more Internet attention that he seeks. What is written on his Wikipedia page is true and has been modified and verified by Wikipedia moderator, EricEnfermero. So, how about Wikipedia moderators work both ways and prevent any subjective info on the subject's page to make him look worse while also undoing any blanking of objectively written and cited info to make him look better. Also, if you're going to quote him in saying "I don’t wake up in the morning and rub my hands together thinking about who I’m going to mess with today." be fair and use the entire quote: "I love the fact that these retarded celebrities share their thoughts. That’s my favorite thing. It’s so much fun to do, but I don’t wake up in the morning and rub my hands together thinking about who I’m going to mess with today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.137.121.67 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that this is dragging on a bit too long - and I think that extensive discussion of the wording in an article should be conducted on the article's talk page. As far as I know, WP doesn't have a role known as moderator. They have a few titles for editors that have responsibilities outside of editing articles, but I don't hold any of those titles. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I must have hit the button in Huggle about the same time you reverted the vandalism. Thanks and sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I figured it was something like that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Céleste Mogador[edit]

Thank you for your review. I have done some rewording as per your suggestion. --Big_iron (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Updating information on Dianrongs Wiki today[edit]

Hey Eric,

I wanted to give you a heads up. I will be adding the following content to the Dianrong site but need a little help. I am going to update the tabl of contents and much of the content on the page will be modified with citations as well. I added it here below to get your feedback. Please advise

Table of Contents:

1. History 2. Key Milestones & History 3. Dianrong Overview

  3.1 Core Technology
  3.2 Technology Licensing Agreements
  3.3 Risk Management
  3.4 Supply-Chain Finance
  3.5 Product Offerings


Do you see any issues? I will be updating this soon so please contact me prior. Thanks Eric Seoterry805wiki (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The table of contents will update automatically as you add section headings to the entry, but there's really not enough content here to speculate on whether your planned contributions will meet WP guidelines. I do see that one of the headings refers to an overview - but the lead section of a WP article serves as an overview and as a summary of the content covered in the rest of the entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pardon My Take[edit]

Regarding this revert: it's safe to always assume anything added by IPs or new editors related to Pardon My Take (and possibly Barstool Sports by extension) to be vandalism. I've never listened to the podcast but they apparently must frequently encourage vandalizing Wikipedia articles, because I can't tell you how many times I've reverted stuff that I later found out was due to something that was said on it. Check out the page history for Jay Glazer on October 10, 2016. Certainly their listeners must view them as comedic geniuses. Lizard (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I thought I had noticed the same connection, but I wasn't sure. When semi-reliable sources like Yahoo! Sports pick up stories like that, it makes me scratch my head. Slow news day, maybe? EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yahoo Sports aggregates a lot of their stories from blogs. That particular story is from Cover32.com. Can't say I've ever heard of that site before. Lizard (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Pie and Mash[edit]

I hope this is a talk message for EricEnfermero if not please ignore or delete

Yes, this is the right place. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just worked it out new talk message shows at bottom, I was looking at top can you please delete other 'please ignore messages plez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbooks (talkcontribs) 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Pie and Mash page is well out of date can I please add an external link to a Facebook group ( I am just a member) called Pie, Mash & Liquor Appreciation Society which has 10,000 members who eat this historic meal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbooks (talkcontribs) 04:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a social media link won't help bring the page into a more current state. See WP:ELNO #10 again; read it, digest it, become one with it. :) EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Now Understood Thank You--Footballbooks (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


Also can we use a 'Internet Archive:Wayback Machine' entry 2004 as a citation/proof of?--Footballbooks (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do that from time to time, but I answer cautiously because I don't know what you're planning to add and you're not building a great track record so far. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Until I get to know all rules and regs I will just quickly run anything past you first before any change ~ Thanks for all your help--Footballbooks (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that to be unnecessary (and failing that, I'll definitely find it to be unnecessary). Most of the time, if you adhere to the five pillars and then remember to stop adding something when another editor removes it and corrects you, I think you'll be fine. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

added link Pie, Mash & Liquor Appreciation Society[edit]

I hope this is a talk page for EricEnfermero if not please ignore and delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbooks (talkcontribs) 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is still the right place. Please ask me your question... but please do not re-add that Facebook link again. WP:ELNO #10 gives clear guidance to leave it out. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a test please ignore[edit]

Just a test please ignore just trying to understand how to input a message for[talk] Footballbooks (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Footballbooks: - You've gotten it right three times now on this page and once on your own talk page. What you need to do now is ask your actual question so that you can receive the help you need. Your only stumbling block with article editing is a very clear-cut issue, so I am not sure how to help you from here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Helen Quach[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 15 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Helen Quach, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1977, symphony conductor Helen Quach was one of two women who led major orchestras anywhere in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Quach. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Helen Quach), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Frank Lowy[edit]

It's actually a fact that Frank Lowy isa tax dodger (see: the LGT scandal 2008). It's very very suspicious how quick you are to take down anything in relation to that. Almost like you're paid to hide this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:5545:4B00:DC49:F605:B30B:E8C4 (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's just how we would word things on Wikipedia. I am quick to take down poorly sourced assertions or broad generalizations whenever I come across them. It's not that I am really being protective of any entry; it's just that your writing style immediately stuck out as inappropriate. We do need to be honest and to include appropriately placed and well-referenced mentions of significant biographical facts, but we also need to write them in a way that would be consistent with encyclopedic style. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nursing[edit]

NURSING - (Do I leave message here, idk) Anyway, so basically what I did was I read on another website about nursing, and later came to the wiki site, however, I noticed some lines were exactly the same. I found the information came from a website and so I simply cited the source of the line that came from the website. I'm sure there was more plagerism, but that was enough to sell me on it. I hope I'm leaving this in the right place. Anyways thanks for your input.

Tessa Bennet (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a reference, but that reference seemed to be the website of a facility, which would be a poor source for material about nursing history. In those cases, the usual approach is to delete the copyright-violating material, find a reliable source (maybe a nursing history book in this case), and use it to place new material in our own words. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)