User talk:Packerfansam

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

Proposed deletion of James Loy (United States Navy)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article James Loy (United States Navy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be notable for only one thing. Unlikely to meet general notability requirement unless a decision has been taken that all recipients of the medal are automatically notable. Please expand or clarify, if possible.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


Proposed deletion of Harold Drotning‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Harold Drotning‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


Proposed deletion of George Engel (United States Army)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article George Engel (United States Army) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Thanks but[edit]

[1] [2]

Thanks much for your help but someone else can put up with this. I have better things to do.

R

May 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits are becoming disruptive. Further such will without a doubt result in administrative responses. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.63.124 (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content - June 2015[edit]

You recently removed a pretty big chunk of information about religious denominations at Michigan, saying only in your edit summary that you had "simplified and shortened" the text. That kind of summary is not appropriate for substantive edits such as that one (or for the similar edit you made to [New York City yesterday. These are not little edits, and must be discussed first at the article Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Sweda[edit]

Many thanks for adding the obituary to the Joseph Sweda article! Good catch!RFD (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies-someone else put the obituary in. I misread the edit history-RFD (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and a reminder about political affiliations & categories[edit]

  • Thanks for carefully adding the correct references to your recent political stub article.
  • As a gentle reminder, noted previously on your talk page, please do include political affiliation in the text of the political biographies you are creating. Please be sure when you add categories, you don't incompletely add such or only add those for Republicans. In the most recent example regarding Seymour M. Knox - one of the most interesting things about that individual was noted in the 2nd reference you provided. He started out as a Democrat, then switched to the Republican party to support Abraham Lincoln. Very cool! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Packerfansam (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Political Graveyard as a source[edit]

The Political Graveyard has been discussed a number of times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (see: [3] and [4]) and the consensus seems to be that because of lack of editorial oversight, it's probably not a reliable source, although it may be included as an external link. So please find a better source for your political bio stubs. 32.218.39.36 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Find A Grave is not a reliable source[edit]

Find A Grave is not a reliable source. This has been discussed numerous times at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. (See [5], for example.) It is also listed at WP:ELPEREN as a perennial website that is user-generated with lack of editorial oversight, making it not a reliable source. Please stop using Find A Grave as a source for information in articles. It may be used as an external link. 32.218.47.68 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Omaha[edit]

Hi Packerfansam, User:JohnInDC contacted me about an edit you made to Omaha. He is concerned that you may be selectively removing content on religions, especially Jews. I think that sometimes religions are over done in some articles, but that is often hard to determine by just reading through articles. For example, Omaha was one of the main destinations for Jews fleeing Russia and Ukraine at the end of the 19th century, so Jews were a huge part of Omaha's later pioneer history. JohnInDC reverted your removal of content, I think was the correct thing to do. Having been born in Omaha and traveling through there often, I also know that their pioneer sculpture parks are a big deal, so I added back in your content. My suggestion is to error on the side of not removing content, which could be construed as controversial, and instead, focus more on adding new content. Best, --I am One of Many (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I had felt the historic religious sites were more deserving of a place in a section about landmarks or something like that. And it's not that I feel it's overdone at all, but sometimes talking about other religions that have a tiny percentage seems to take away from the denominations that are the crucial part of the majority of people's lives and can also bloat the article. I would also point out that a different denomination they thought I was being unfair about was brought up almost directly above the section I edited, and I made no changes. Apologies for this and any other inconveniences in advance. I've gotten the impression that at this point nothing I do will please this user. Sorry if anytime I do something they might not like they feel the need to contact you. Packerfansam (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to apologize. I think the issue is that there is a general consensus that we should mention all major religions even if their population is relatively small. We just state the facts and let the reader make of them what they want. I don't believe that you are editing with a bias against any particular religion or political party, but other editors may think you are when you remove content regarding specific religions or political parties. If you find content regarding religion or political affiliation that could be construed as controversial, please feel free to ask for advice on my talk page. Either I or someone watching my talk page will give you advice. Regarding User:JohnInDC, he really is concerned with the best interests of Wikipedia and I hope you understand that that is where he is coming from and why he is so concerned with a few of your edits. So, I believe the general consensus on Wikipedia is not to remove religious affiliations (major religions) of a population or group even if they are very small. Also, with politicians, their party affiliation should be mentioned if known. Best. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Stepping back from editing about religion[edit]

I think that it would be highly advisable for you to agree voluntarily to stop editing anything to do with religion in Wikipedia; there is a reasonably good case to be made that the recent pattern is unacceptable, though people are still arguing over details of it. When you touch the topic you appear to create controversy. If you did not intend to, you need to take a breather and consider why you are. Please consider this and stick to other topic areas that are not causing concern about bias and non-neutral editing. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In the most recent stub you created, Jacob J. Aulenbacher, there is an edit that supports @Georgewilliamherbert:'s concern noted above. As noted here, the source doesn't say "He would receive a religious-based education.". It says "He attended public and parochial schools until he was fourteen years of age". Please stop. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Same problem with Alfred G. Becker, as noted here. The source does not say he "received a religious-based education". It says he attended both district (public) and parochial schools. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cornish politicians[edit]

I see no benefit from this. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to create problem stubs vs. cleanup[edit]

There is appreciation from many for your contributions. But there is also concern about your edits, and not just from @JohnInDC:, but also from @I am One of Many:, @32.218.39.36:, @Orangemike:, @Georgewilliamherbert:, and @DuncanHill: (and likely others). A number of us have left helpful thoughts for you: here, at WP:ANI, and other talk pages, such as Talk:Hollis Latham and even my talk page. I have a suggestion: pause in your creation of new (and frankly, very thinly sourced) stub article (such as A. Chapin Whiting, which has only the lede sentence with a citation, and everything else is unreferenced). Instead, go through your contributions, starting with the most recent one [6], and then going back 500 at a time, and correct the obvious errors:

  1. Remove references to findagrave.com, as noted here: User_talk:Packerfansam#Find_A_Grave_is_not_a_reliable_source. Either find a better reference, or remove the unreferenced text. Please don't create new articles using this as a source.
  2. Find replacement references for politicalgraveyard.com, as noted here User_talk:Packerfansam#The_Political_Graveyard_as_a_source. If you can't find a better reference (but other editors were able to find them, in some cases), then mark them as [better source needed]. Please don't create new articles using this as your only source. The result is an article that should be tagged as having inadequate referencing, such as George Hyer.
  3. Use proper citation formats and contents, as was done with this edit [7] - look at the edits to see the corrections made.
  4. Follow the WP:MOS for placement of sections, as we corrected here [8].

I and other editors have been going through your contributions trying to cleanup after you to fix these problems, and also to look for instances where you removed cited sources (as you did, yet again, as noted most recently here User_talk:Packerfansam#Omaha). However, as you continue to create stubs with sourcing and citation problems, it has become a Red Queen's race. It is also unfair for you to create work for other editors, all of whom, I'm sure, would rather be contributing in other ways, but all of whom see the necessity of fixing these probems.

I really do implore you to stop creating new stubs until you fix the ones you've created. There's plenty of fixing left to do. Will you please help improve the encyclopedia? I am very sorry, but your recent contributions have, in many cases, been not helpful. We're here to help, but we can't help you if you continue as you have been.

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider the Hollis Latham article as an example. Here is what it looked like after you finished with it, about 10 minutes before you went on to create yet another stub. Here is what it looked like after RFD and I expanded the content, from the source you cited and from others we easily found online. JoeSperrazza also contributed some valuable commentary on the Talk page about the reliability of some sources, reflecting a need to be thoughtful about such matters when adding material to Wikipedia. Don't you agree that the article looks much better now than it did when you finished with it? There is really no need to be in a rush to add a lot of skimpy stubs to Wikipedia. They often don't contain enough information to be useful to anyone. It's much better to spend some time seeking reliable sources and fleshing out the information on a single article than to churn out many stubs with little information in them. JoeSperrazza has given you some valuable advice on how to improve your editing. Please keep in mind that we're all here to improve Wikipedia and to help you. If you're having trouble seeing why other editors made the edits they did, just ask. 32.218.36.31 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, and I do mean this to be with humility, don't think I'm being snarky, I don't recall there being an issue with using The Political Graveyard as a source until recently. I think there was one user years back that I worked with who doubted Find A Grave, but at the time they seemed to be in the minority. I accept that many seem to now disagree, but it has thrown me for a loop. I truly believed I was citing reliable sources. Packerfansam (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, there may have been somebody doubting The Political Graveyard in the past. However, they again seemed to be in the minority at the time. Packerfansam (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that The Political Graveyard is a reliable source. From what I can see it hasn't been discussed much. It is used in academic publications as a reliable source [9] it is is used extensively as a source in Wikipedia. I do think there is a good case for its reliability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. But even if others agree, given my recent history, I may try to use it sparingly in an attempt not to stir up trouble. Packerfansam (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Maybe sometime in the future we might take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with a strong argument. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Did either of you read User_talk:Packerfansam#The_Political_Graveyard_as_a_source? Stating "My opinion is that The Political Graveyard is a reliable source" is not helpful. The Political Graveyard has been discussed at WP:RSN on multiple occasions and determined to be not a reliable source, e.g.,
  1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#The_Political_Graveyard.3F: "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here."
  2. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Political_Graveyard: "...WP:USERGENERATED... no editorial oversight... a lot of false "legends" about historical political figures that pop up over the years"
These sources should not be used "sparingly", the should not be used at all and should be removed and replaced with proper sources. Will you stop creating improper stubs and go back and clean up your work? JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, puh-leez, The Political Graveyard is not the issue, so stop pretending it is. Read the comments by JoeSperrazza. There are serious issues with the quality of your editing in many areas. Make an effort to change, instead of being so defensive. If you continue to blithely shrug off the problems, things will not go well for you. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't intend to cause a dispute with my comments, but note a couple of things. First, those are comments by only two editors with no discussion based on sources. Second, when I looked into The Political Graveyard, I found that it was created by an academic and used in academic publications. My point was that a genuine discussion is needed.--I am One of Many (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A genuine discussion has already taken place, many times; check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives. You found 194 examples where the term "The Political Graveyard" appeared in a work indexed by Google Scholar. That's out of over 11,000,000 entries indexed by GS. Few of those 194 works were in peer-reviewed publications. Simply put, The Political Graveyard is not a source respected by scholars, so don't bother arguing that point further. When better sources are easily found, as in the stub articles created by Packerfansam, they should be used instead of The Political Graveyard. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can go through bios and try to expand. However, if while looking for new sources I also happen to find a substantial amount of info to create a bio of somebody else that doesn't have one on here yet, I'll probably create one. Packerfansam (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I would like to make it clear that I have no involvement in this, despite @JoeSperrazza:'s false claim above. I have asked him to strike my name from his comment at the top of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Packerfansam (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Milton F. Burmaster[edit]

You removed the Members of the Wisconsin State Assembly category from the Milton F. Burmaster article with no reasons given. I had to restore the category to the article. Please provide explanations to changes in articles. This will help the other editors. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Question - in most categories, if an article is listed in one or more of its subcategories, it should be removed from the main category, from my understanding. Does that apply with Assembly members? Packerfansam (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The category is to be kept in; this identifies what office the individual had served in. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Community House, First Congregational Church[edit]

Thank you for creating Community House, First Congregational Church. Any idea why this is listed on the NRHP, but not the church building itself? My research shows that this is a historic church, attended by the likes of Orrin Henry Ingram and his son, Erskine B. Ingram. Did the original building burn down?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it was added because of its architecture. From my understanding the church is still there. I don't know why that itself wouldn't be registered, it would seem to be more significant. Packerfansam (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)