User talk:SGGH/Archive 2014/March

New mainspace article

The draft 'ACW history on stamps' is promoted to B class Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Military project notes grammar needs clean up, I see mixed tenses and sentence fragments remaining. Philately project has a neat template for missing images inviting contributions, gave the article high importance rating.

I meant it to be history of ACW postal service, events and culture, with biography of those notables with ACW life experience. But the main article template is named on advice of Rjensen as 'Commemoration of the American Civil War' and not the broader 'American Civil War'. I think it's just me, unsure about the article title vs. working title 'ACW history on stamps' -- unless you can bring another perspective. The choice was not discussed. I'm chalking up my not understanding the choice to my being a Meyers-Briggs INTJ 3-percenter.

Thank you for your encouragement. Bottom line, it feels good to have an article in mainspace. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Great work. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Military Ridge Road

Hi-I saw your article about the Wisconsin Military Road. You may want to take a look at another article the Wisconsin Military Ridge Road. The 2 articles may be about the same military road and may be needed to be merged. Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did try and have a search around (it's an AFC rather than something I wrote) but must have missed it. Will review. Ta. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was considering writing an article on the road for several years. It was a major route back in the horse & buggy days. I've always seen it referred as the Military Road not the Military Ridge Road. I'm curious why the "Ridge" part was added. No wonder why I never saw the article. I have uploaded many images taken along the route in the northernmost segments of the road over the years, so I'll make a category at Commons. Royalbroil 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I moved the AfC one to the older article title. I've little knowledge of the correct term and anyone is free to move it if they like, and yes images would be good! Thanks, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman

Hi, I've nominated the article for DYK. You are welcome to propose alt hooks. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thank you! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Test match, Abdul Hafeez and George Fullerton (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) 09:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

edit request

Hi there you are an administrator please let me edit the skyscrapers page which is locked.

Which page? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Skyscraper--Coolieguy (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay could you please put this in modern skyscrapers section: It says: German architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe became one of the world's most renowned architects in the second half of the 20th century. He conceived of the glass façade skyscraper[42] and designed the Seagram Building in 1958, a skyscraper that is often regarded as the pinnacle of the modernist high-rise architecture. --- well as the architect is praised I'd like to mention the engineer as well he is Fred N. Severud a norweign structural engineer. So can we add like the structural engineer of the seagram building was the norweign structural engineer fred severud, who was listed in engineering legends for his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolieguy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit

I think you really, really need to read the whole Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates page before offering an "olive branch" to this user. It's a single-purpose account whose very first edit summary was an attempt to smear Coates as a "criminal." Every single edit the user has made has been related to attempting to insert a throwaway line in Coates' bio to the effect that he was arrested. There is a well-developed consensus on the article talk page that this is entirely inappropriate, and that the incident is only notable in the context of what Coates has written about how the event affected his life - and so should only be mentioned in context, with due weight and a focus on what Coates wrote about the experience. The user in question has repeatedly rejected this consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but hoped that a softly-softly approach by someone uninvolved might have been able to convince him that broadly established policies can't be undermined. No doubt many have already tried however. Your summary regarding what is an acceptable inclusion of the incident in the article is precisely how I would have had it included were I to have the chance to speak to the user again, so I suspect you are right when you say I would likely fail to convince them. But thank you for the heads up. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

reporting a rude user

A user wrote this: This guy got to be retarded, seriously. WTF? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fazlur_Khan&action=history This user went on a personal attack and I'd like to report this. There is no need to call someone something like this he can report it himself if he finds me problems. --119.30.39.24 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why you've brought this to me? Are you the same as User:Coolieguy? And also the same as the IP who had that edit reverted? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The user has apologised for getting personal, at User talk:Tenebrae, however as one of the involved parties in what appears to be an ongoing edit war, you need to review your own actions accordingly, from what I can see. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Horst apologized for "getting personal" but that's actually not the same as apologizing for using the word "retarded" as a slur. It's disgusting, juvenile and calls into question the maturity and judgement of this user. Furthermore, Horst has been aggressively tearing apart the Khan page because he some kind of vendetta against this user and/or Khan. Horst has removed several properly cited facts about Khan. The one that I flagged during the past 2 days of research was Horst's removal of an observation that Khan made about his process, that he imagines himself as the building. This was cited correctly, but in Horst's egotistical rage, he cut the observation out. Here's the quote:

“When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.”

And here's the source:

http://drfazlurrkhan.com/professional-milestones/en-r-constructions-man-of-the-year-issue-february-10-1972/

Let's hope it makes it back in soon. And seriously, someone needs to look at take a closer look at Horst and his edits.108.27.114.64 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, let's not slip into our own personal jibes, like "egotistical rage" - debate over content is one thing, but slipping into comments about other users is another, and it invalidates one's point if one does that when debating a matter. That is true of both Horst and yourself. The content issue is not one I'm going to comment on for I don't know anything about the subject or the history. But Horst apologised for the personal comment, so I'm satisfied with that. I hope the content dispute is resolved peacefully. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Hi,

You offered to work with me to reach a satisfactory conclusion with this whole Coates edit stuff. If you're still up for it, I am. Let me know how you'd like to go about it. I'll defer to your experience. Useitorloseit (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for taking me up on the offer. Let's use my talk page shall we? Are these points below correct?

• From what I can ascertain the issue revolves around whether or not to include mention of Ta-Nehisi Coates being placed under arrest - but not charged or convicted - for the offence of assaulting a teacher, while at high school. Is this correct?
• The main source for this is a blog/article written by the source himself that states that he was arrested for such an incident while at high school. Is that also correct?
• Also in this blog, the subject of the article states that the incident had an impact of his life, social development, beliefs, etc. and it is on this beliefs that he writes the blogs and articles for which he is notable, is that right?
• Lastly, we've not, as yet, found a third party source that corroborates the matter. Is this right?

Our policies on articles on living people are quite strict. Particularly something called WP:BLPCRIME. In essence it is true that unconvicted arrests do not tend to be included, I quote: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Furthermore, I can add that we only tend to mention it if: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities" and "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual."

The subjects crime is not notable in itself for being unusual or ground breaking (compared to, say, the Whitechapel murders.) Nor is he a person who is of such huge significance that his criminal background becomes notable simply because he is so notable. However - I could imagine that if it is citable that the incident was such a hugely significant event for him and it directly influenced the writing style and opinions that, via his articles, make him notable. Then perhaps there could be an argument for inclusion. But I would be of the opinion that what would be appropriate would be a verifiable statement quoted from the subject, rather than a fact-by-fact rendition of the event. Something like:

When commenting on his inspiration for writing, he remarked in 2014 "I was arrested for X, Y, Z when I was young and that had a huge impact on my writing."

Which in my mind would be preferable to:

He was arrested for X, Y and Z.

With the former, the event may have notability and relevance to that which in turn makes the subject relevant. It would also work better given that we only have the primary source.

I hope I've made the distinction clear. Is what I'm saying fair, this far?

Please note: I'm aware that a big RfC took place on this, and it was decided not to include the event. I only want to say that maybe in the form I mention above, it could get a mention. However this is not a definite comment and those editors who were against its inclusion are as experienced, or more, than I am. But those are thoughts I'm having. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks again for doing this. I’ll go one by one:

• I would broaden the issue a little (and at the time of my first edit, I was only aware of the arrest so it’s my fault it’s focused so much on that). I would call what I want to include “the discipline incidents” or "school delinquency issues" or maybe "troubled youth" or something. Coates summarizes his history thusly: “My roller-coaster ride through the Baltimore-area schools included two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police.” However you want to describe that "set of occurrences" is what I believe has a place in the article, not simply the arrest. And yes, nothing about being convicted; just the arrest by itself.
• Correct, although there are 5 sources by my count: 4 blog posts (from 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013) mentioning the arrest specifically and sometimes the other infractions too. Also, the subject’s 2008 memoir mentions it, on page 172 (in the 2012 blog post, the author refers readers to “read the long version" about it in his book).
• I would say yes, since he refers to the incidents numerous times over a period of years in the blog (his “day job” and only regular source of writing, as far as I can tell) and also his book. The citations I have above are 4 times he did it; here's another in a similar vein though only generally mentioning his troubled upbringing, not specific incidents. So I think he’s using this material as a specific reference point often enough to make it notable to his biography. (Not sure if it's worthy of inclusion, but this 3rd party blurb about him might also suggest his schooling is a specific part of his notability).
• Correct, no third-party sources. It’s probably unlikely there are any, given the fact that he wasn’t famous in high school, and he’s not famous enough for someone to have investigated it. My understanding is 1st person accounts can be used assuming a set of concerns are met (e.g., no reasonable claim that they’re false; not unduly self-serving). Given the negative nature of the incidents in question, and the reputable magazine that published them, I think it meets the reliability test.

I understand and agree fully with the BLP:CRIME policy. I am not sure if we’re calling the subject “relatively unknown” or not, but either way I feel the “serious consideration" test is met. I view it the way you postulated it: include “if…it directly influenced the writing style and opinions that, via his articles, make him notable.” To me it’s like mentioning that an author of a book on anorexia once suffered from eating issues themselves, or a writer about homelessness once was homeless. It enhances the reader’s understanding of the subject by giving them perspective on possible reasons for the subject’s work and their authority and credibility to comment on the given issue. The notability of the “discipline incidents” is wrapped up with the notability of the subject.

You have been very fair, and I know nothing you’ve said binds you in any way about the edit.

Note: I didn't feel the RfC was very successful because 1. It got deleted as soon as I created it, then devolved into an edit war over it and 2. It involved the same debate that focused on me rather than the substance of the edit, e.g. “You’re just a single-purpose account”; “Your edit summary shows your real agenda.” So I wouldn’t say the actual edit issues have been discussed very much. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Is this a published memoir? What does it say about the incident? If there is enough content in the memoir and the blogs to create from them a "writing style/influences" section of the article, then I believe we can include incidents of ill-discipline (including the arrest) in such a section. If you've got access to the sources, why not write such a section and post it at User:Useitorloseit/sandbox - complete with references - and I can prune anything that needs pruning and see if we can submit it as a section? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it. Since the article already has a "Writing and Teaching" section, I think that would suffice so can I work off that? I've always felt Wikipedia "Influences" sections border on POV violations, since they look more like critical analysis than straight encyclopedia content. I also think adding a new section might be UNDUE, since this guy is not super-famous. I've never used Sandbox before so please be patient with me. Useitorloseit (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I made a rough draft; I know there's duplication there but I wanted to experiment with different options. Let me know if you think I'm headed in an acceptable direction. I do think that this article has a lot of info about him that hasn't met the same "explicit influence" burden being asked of my edit. My basic position is this: if this is a notable biographical detail, then it should go in the section dealing with when it happened, which is "early life". Useitorloseit (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're write, they can be POV-ish often. The best ones tend to be sourced summaries of actual critical analysis. I'll have a look. Hope you don't mind if I tweak it a little if needed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly. What we really need is a direct quote from the book that contains the entire concept in one like, something like "X, Y and my arrests (etc.) were a great influence on my childhood" rather than us quoting that the arrest took place and then saying that they are influential, as that's a bit POV/OR-ish. Does such a line exist in the book that removes the need for us to connect the two things together in the manner that I have done in my version of your text? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I’ll dig for quotes, but I think after reading the facts of the bio and what the subject writes about, readers will see the connection fairly easily. It’s like my example of the writer about homelessness who was homeless themselves: it seems pretty implicit, without needing to be spelled out. Could you share your reasoning about why the influence of this stuff should be so explicitly stated, as opposed to treating it like the other facts in the article that he also writes about (Black Panther father, Howard U., Baltimore in general)? I agree saying what is influential to this guy without a direct quote is POV/ORish, but why does that mean we can’t include well-supported facts that have cites? What about just saying that the illdiscipline happened and that over the years he’s repeatedly written about it? Those are all straight facts that have cites, with no discussion of what is or isn’t influential. If you think doing so might be UNDUE, I can add other topics he writes about (with cites) to lessen any UNDUE factor. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not undue weight, it's simply that we cannot make any connection on our own. He has to say "X, Y and Z happened which influenced my later views and my writing" or something similar. That is what makes mention of the events notable enough to be included, and by only mentioning them in a quotation about the influences on his writing it passes BLPCRIME policy also, I would argue. You can put in that he mentions several incidents of indiscipline but not be specific, that's fine, but I thought that you're issue revolved around the fact that you felt a specific mention of the arrest was appropriate? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I’m open to different approaches, but I think he makes enough consistent references to the “inner city/troubled schooling” stuff that some form of it should go in, whatever form that eventually takes. What do you say to the argument that the fact he’s discussed this stuff several times over the years is enough to demonstrate influence/notability? Useitorloseit (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that in the context of influences an argument could be made for the inclusion of a carefully cited and verified sentence stating that the subject has clearly discussed events of his childhood, including this, being an influence for his writing. So yes. It deserves no more than a line in the article. If you have a line set up, with citations, I can propose it for you perhaps? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I drafted a bare bones edit in the early life section, just about the indiscipline generally; let me know what you think. I would also like to hear your reasoning about my earlier question about why "influence" must be quoted directly rather than inferred from the fact that he's written about the events often enough and therefore they must be influential on him. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look now, and apologies if I missed your earlier question, but my answer would be that for an article to infer something comes close to original research - we can only report on what other people infer, should their inferences be considered significant on the subject. We need him to infer so we can report that he does so, rather than make the leap ourselves. I'll have a look at your sandbox. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Why not present that version on the article talk page - calmly, I might add! - but first you need to make sure that citations come after punctuation, not before. At the moment your version has the citations coming before the semi-colons. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm confused what you are suggesting I submit: as my draft Sandbox version now stands, are you ok with all or only part of it, and if so which part? Useitorloseit (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The top half that you have written seems okay, but with the punctuation/ref thing I suggested. I'd post it to the talk page and advise that you and I've been speaking and I've suggested that in this guise the content might be includable. I must stress though that there is no guarantee that the broad consensus will share my opinion, and I'll not go against the view of the majority. But hopefully for yourself, the more measured approach might obtain the result you believe is right. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll correct then post. I'm posting the whole Personal Life section and the first paragraph of the Writing and Teaching section, just to be clear. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I've lent my support, we shall see what happens. I applaud the rationale approach you've taken. It may still be defeated, but this is a good way to go about it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fifer pages

Hi, you're doing a great job by creating articles on list of fifers. It's good to see all those red links turn blue. But make sure that you don't content-fork lists from the parent article. This can be a serious issue when you nominate articles for FLCs; I've experienced that in the past. Good luck with the Trueman's list. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Lo Que La Vida Me Robó

Ok, no problem :).--GeorgeMilan (Talk) 20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Bradshaw (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Granby (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Coates edit

Hi,

Looks like there hasn't been any more discussion on this for a while. I made some changes to incorporate concerns voiced by you and others. If you agree we reached a good consensus, would you like to make the change in the article? Useitorloseit (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Sacramento (Kentucky), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Henry and Leroy Walker (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) 08:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 ITF Men's Circuit

Do you mind completing this article and its sub-article? Banhtrung1 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I can tinker if you like but I'm not really a tennis guy. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)