User talk:EricEnfermero

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


Questions? Comments? Advice? Talk to me.

GA of Red Dwarf[edit]

Mate, i didn't found the even first or second archive of Red Dwarf. Talk:Red Dwarf/GA3 is not showing anything. Can you please state a link for this? Thanks SuperHero👊 12:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red Dwarf/GA3 is a red link because there have not been three GA nominations for that article. (The article passed its first nomination.) You actually want to look at the archives of the talk page. In this case, Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 3 is the page you want. It's the 15th section, "Good Article nomination". EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At least link it there na to avoid further chaos. SuperHero👊 12:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to link to it, but I don't think there was chaos. I'm surprised it wasn't linked automatically. Maybe it was the age of the review; the formatting must have been different that many years ago. It was easy to manually locate the review though, and I think it's really just a lesson to ask someone with a little more experience the next time you're seeing something that doesn't look quite right. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough mate. Thanks once again. SuperHero👊 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Eric I apologize I am new to this process 23Athlete (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. You thinking about changing it back per the guideline? EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Joe Harasymiak[edit]

Thanks, the reason why the unsourced tag went up was at that moment there were no sources, so it wasn't quite carelessly tagged-but thanks for adding them. Wgolf (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the article history and consider the age of the article in relation to the amount of improvement that was occurring in the minutes prior to the tag, and when you look at how many hits come up in a Google search for this unique subject, I think you'll understand why the tag was not so helpful. Article tagging tends to be overused in easy-to-source articles, but that's especially true in a case like this where there is ongoing work from a particular editor. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nomad Africa Magazine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heritage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hank Aaron edit[edit]

Hey, I just want to know why you think the information about Aaron playing in total of six different positions is not worthy of being put on the page. Chief baseball editor (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Whenever you have a question like that, one of your best bets is to go back to the article, then click on View History near the top of the page. You'll see the list of edits made to the article, as well as the edit summaries - the comments that we should be leaving with each edit.
In this case, the issue was that the added sentence was sandwiched between two sentences that have to go together to make sense, which disturbed the chronological order of the article. We can't say that he made spring training appearances, then he played six MLB positions, then that led him to signing an MLB contract. He signed the MLB contract before he became a six-position MLB player, of course. We certainly want to cover the positions that he played, so it's not unworthy information, but we already cover it elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you have more questions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction/reversion on the Segway PT article![edit]

Oy, what an embarrassing misreading on my part! Looking at the sentence now, I can't imagine what I was thinking. The question of whether one sentence is trying to do the work of two can be left for another day. Best, Michael (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I had to read it a few times before I was confident one way or the other. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

idk happy Felinetines day... Also, please forgive my behavior. I am new to this and i just wanted to have a little laugh. I'll try my best to not do these things :) Raegan31712 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Raegan31712 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)