Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Biography/By profession

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

1[edit]

Hey User:Ricardo Carneiro Pires, when you grab this stuff from places I'm trying to organize... take all the entries with you! :D

I'd wanted to get people listed all in one place, and it looks like you've made that place, so move all the other sections over here - and then put links in, like I'd started doing on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences‎. And like the header section you'd grabbed from one of those places.
~ender 2008-02-16 14:07:PM MST

Professional list vs. Straight alphabetical list?[edit]

Personally, I like them broken up by functional group, by profession (or perhaps major nationality?) But we should pick one way of doing things. With of course an alphabetized list of unsorted/other people at the bottom.

If we break it up by profession, we can link individual sections from other Requested article pages as I used to have done intra-page at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences‎.
~ender 2008-02-16 14:53:PM MST

Biography requests for Biz, Math, Nat. Sci.[edit]

Right now, I'm tentatively advocating leaving those major request pages alone, in their categories. The people running those sections made individual sections for biographies, and have been keeping them organized. I say we just link to them, and make a catch-all container for each at the bottom of the page, as I've done for Math. What're your thoughts?
~ender 2008-02-17 11:42:AM MST

Please don't delete people's requests[edit]

Please don't delete people's requests.

Refile them appropriately THEN delete them.

The Biography page is *NOT* cleaned up. I'm in the process of cleaning it, but yeah, it ain't done yet. I'm sorting things out (notice many of the professional sections are not suppossed to be on that page, but I've not gone thru every letter yet, nor the unsorted, to pull out every businessman, writer, etc, etc, etc).

The biography requests were in a state of higgedly-piggedly for like 2 years? And have sections all over the place - which non-users could not fix (if you notice I started trying to fix stuff about a year or two ago, getting people put into only a couple of places, until a user made a central location).

Unfortunately, that means that random non-wikipedians dropped requests into sections that were mostly people (and there are people requests scattered throughout related sections). When I pulled all of those sections to biography page, they weren't sorted. But they did need to be deleted from the places they were at so that reconciling the names and such didn't get even worse (and it was bad as it turned out).

If you want those sections gone, then find the correct places to file those requests. That's why they're below the fold in the 'working on area'
~ender 2008-03-16 01:27:PM MST

I was scrolling through the list, and noticed that there are several requests for which articles have been created. Any problems with me removing those requests? Jedikaiti (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No objections at all. If a biography has been created, the request should be removed from the list. Also, as a cautionary note: before removing the name it is a good idea to make certain that the blue link goes to an "actual" biography page. Sometimes the names are linked to a general article where the subject is mentioned, to a disambiguation page or to someone with the same name. CactusWriter | needles 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Duly noted. Will do! Jedikaiti (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the chaff[edit]

I have finished sorting through the uncategorized names -- placing the identifiable ones by nationality or profession (sometimes both), and placing the others in the non-notable/questionable notability category. I am going to proceed through the alphabetized names and any name which has no identifying information or reason for notability will be moved to the non-notable/questionable notability category. All unidentified names and non-notables should be deleted. CactusWriter | needles 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple notables?[edit]

What if a person is notable in different, disparate fields? (I'd like an article on Maurice Bessinger who is widely known as A. A major South Carolina restauranteur and popularizer of mustard-based barbecue sauce B. A segregationist and Neo-Confederate political candidate/ court case participant/ fundraiser/ polemicist. I'm not sure whether to put him in politics or cooking. Look him up online- you can find lots of articles on one, the other or both. It should be noted that he is still alive.) Orville Eastland (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have added several people connected with Newington Green Unitarian Church in the process of creating that article. Several of the ministers were active in other spheres, notably politics or social reform. Andrew Pritchard played a role there (as treasurer) but was more notable as a microscopist. So should he go under natural science (as a maker of microscopes) or businessman (for running the shop) or what? Is it OK to list an individual under multiple categories? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's okay to place names of people under more than one category if they are known in more than one field. In the case of Bessinger, his notoriety derives from his work as a businessman -- both in terms of praise for his successful restaurant chain and criticism of his racial views. I would put him primarily under Business People, but also under Chefs would be okay. Of course, a better idea is to start an article about him if you have some interest. Hmm? (With the understanding that this is a BLP with some hot-button issues -- and needs a very firm WP:NPOV touch). CactusWriter | needles 09:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Pritchard is more difficult since he's one of those people that fall between the cracks. He was a microscopist, but not a scientist -- a maker of microscopes and eye glasses, but not an inventor. Not really known as a businessman, but rather his work with microscopes. Perhaps we should add a category for Craftsman. CactusWriter | needles 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"A. (Andrew) Pritchard (b. 1804 - d. 1882) was one of the earliest established commercial slide makers, being in business from the late 1820s until his retirement in 1852. He was also well known and highly respected as a skilled instrument maker and optician, as well as a prolific author, having published a number of influential books on optics and microscopy beginning in 1827." [1] I know little of his professional work, but I understand that the innovations he made in building the microscopes and slides really pushed the field forward, e.g. the engiscope. He wrote extensively. He also studied microscopic creatures, and wrote about that too: so notable in biology?
'The natural history of animalcules: containing descriptions of all the known species of infusoria; with instructions for procuring and observing them', 1834.
'Microscopic illustrations of living objects with researches concerning the construction of microscopes, and instructions for using them', 1845, 3rd edition.
Check out the Lundy Antique Microscope Collection! [2] So that makes Pritchard notable in the history of microbiology as well as optics. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he definitely did a lot of in microscopy. And of course, he was living during a time when many pioneers in science were still not actually educated as "scientists". I think you were right in placing him in Natural Science. I think Inventors also works. And I would also place him in United Kingdom as well. The important thing is not so much to define the person exactly, but rather add them to a spot where a particular editor who is browsing that category for ideas might find them interesting. Thanks for adding him. CactusWriter | needles 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bessinger is done. 5 years later, but why not.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 06:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Merged photographer request lists[edit]

I've combined the photographer request lists from this page and from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Visual arts and edited them all to conform to the style dictated at the top of this page. I'm a little troubled about the alphabetization by last name, but that's what the instructions say. I chose to put the combined list here because this page is better organized and the instructions and notability warnings are much clearer here. Also, I placed an instruction panel on the other page, directing people to this page.

It would be really nice if someone with a knowledge of photography history would comb through all the requests and brutally clean out the non-notables. I'll wager a large fraction of them are self-promoters.

--Joseph Hewes (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Characters[edit]

Fictional characters don't really belong with the requests for real people on this page. They don't have the same standards of notability and aren't a concern for BLP, plus they're awkward to alphabetize by last name. Would anyone object to moving them to the Literature page? (I think all of the current requests are literary characters.) --Joseph Hewes (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for non-notability[edit]

I read:

Requests moved from the above categories that do not meet the notability guidelines. Explain the reason for their non-notability.

Normally: "does not meet the notability guidelines".

I'm here in response to a request made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography. I see an enormous list of redlinks. Only five or so of the names are familiar to me. Most of the redlinks come with no suggestion of notability whatever, no URL, no nothing. I could Google each, but my life's too short. I therefore suggest throwing out all of the uninformative entries (save the very few that I happen to know of). Probably some of these people will be notable (even by my standards, let alone yours). If this approach seems "deletionist", note that it does nothing whatever to dissuade anyone from writing a more persuasive recommendation, or indeed writing a good article.

If you disagree with my approach, feel free to revert my recent edits. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

My idea is not for a specific person, but rather an organized effort to expand many of the existing bios. An interesting sidelight to bios is that many important people appear on postage stamps (and currency, but that's another matter) and there are literally tens of thousands of stamps world-wide that do so. I am suggesting a project to include stamp images with the appropriate bios. Perhaps someone more technical than I can build a database for these images and/or suggest the most efficient way to do this. I think this would be an exciting project not just for stamp collectors, but for history buffs and art/design people and specialists in many other areas (ex. Broadcast Technology Research). If you think this idea has a chance, or you object to it, I am Stampczar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stampczar (talkcontribs) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging potential conflict of interest[edit]

Re my edit to the "Ireland" section adding Christy Kenneally: I am related to Christy Kenneally. That being said, I would not propose the article unless I genuinely believed he met Wikipedia notability standards and that I felt an article on him would be proper to an encyclopedia. I have included a great deal of notability information for that reason. I did not and will not create such an article as that would be a blatant COI, but I consider my making a request to be acceptable; however, I'm acknowledging the COI here and now to avoid fallout in the future. If anyone feels my making this article request was inappropriate, please reply here or on my talk page. Thank you. --Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On conflict of interest - I must be in the minority here at Wikipedia worrying more about a missed golden opportunity to gather information from people who are still alive than about issues of conflict of interest/ notability/ verifyability/ etc. I look around and see people with knowledge that will unquestionably become of crucial interest to future generations, being shunned by Wikipedia because of these issues. For example I am shocked to see that a person such as Dalton Pritchard (RCA color TVs, 36 patents, etc) whom I met last year and who is, I believe, in his nineties and still with a clear mind, has nothing written about him here at Wikipedia – I am sure given the opportunity Mr. Pritchard could do a good job of it himself. I have also seen some references by people who have personal knowledge of early computer technology saying that they cannot write for Wikipedia, not because they don't have the knowledge, but because they cannot back up the writing with neutral references! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talkcontribs) 12:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, but, as you note, we are in the minority. But when it comes to not even making a request for an article because of fear of conflict of interest, then the "verifiersetc." have gone too far I hope even by the majority's criteria. Kdammers (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a cue from Sir Ophiuchus, I'd like to add my own disclosure re: my adding of Charles Trimble under non-fiction writers, since I'm his daughter. (So I may be biased about his notability, but I do honestly believe he qualifies, or I wouldn't request the page.) I'd go ahead and start a page, but time and COI concerns (among other things) prevent me. However, when/if anyone does start a page and wants to hit me up for clarifications, etc., please feel free to do so. Jedikaiti (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also adding my own disclosure for the addition of my family members Robert W. Radtke and V. Mary Abraham. I believe that both meet notability standards but as I am related to them I do not feel comfortable writing their pages. Please let me know if you'd like any more information about either of them and I would be happy to help. Alinzar (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Parting Words/"Strongly Discouraged"[edit]

These are my parting words: Wikipedia states that writing about yourself is "strongly discouraged", that does not mean it is not allowed. And it says it is discouraged because the article I may write may not be neutral or I may not be notable, or I many not cite reputable references. Yes, I wrote the article myself, so you have every right to criticize it for notability, for fairness or for the references I used. You guys seem way more concerned with fighting petty turf wars than actually improving Wikipedia. The work that I do is taught in art classes! I have been patiently waiting for someone somewhere to write an article that should have been written years ago. Instead, what Wikipedia encourages is for people to not follow the rules and go to "independent editors". Someone should look in Wikipedia at the article for "Unintended consequences" and "Perverse results"! I just want to be clear about one thing, unlike a lot of people who need Wikipedia to become famous, that is not the case for me. I was just really trying to update a document that when it comes to the arts, deeply lags behind... How very discouraging indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausenrique (talkcontribs) 19:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge religions[edit]

I'm going to Wikipedia:Be bold and merge some of the subsections within Religion. Specifically, I've been looking at C17 and C18 English reformers, and many of them switched between the Established Church and various strands of Dissenters. It seems to make little sense to split the bio requests into too precise a category. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is a mess[edit]

OK, the page doesn't have to be as nicely laid out as expected in article space, but it really could be better. For example, it's got a psychics section, containing people who don't seem to be psychics, and with a "Medical Scientists" subsection, quite separate from other medics and scientists sections. Psychiatrists are all over the place. (I assume it just gradually degenerated this way.) As it could take me half a day to rejig this page, and as others may have views on a better arrangement, I won't pursue this now.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that too... After adding a request under Musicians, also alphabetized the list. Is anyone taking care of this page over at WPBIO? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Access[edit]

Why are these request pages so well hidden? It used to be that a failed Wik search brought up a link to the request pages. That doesn't happen now. 211.225.37.108 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Athletes?[edit]

I can't find a section for athletes, coaches etc. Are they, unlike people in other fields, to be entered in the subject area rather than in bio?202.179.19.18 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The section is listed as Sportspersons or on the page at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports. CactusWriter (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Worth H. Bagley[edit]

W H Bagley has been requested under military figures but already exists. Can I simply remove the name or is there a process? Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fodzi B Hussin[edit]

Graduated at Univesity of Malaya Bachelors of Architecture as known as IR Fodzi Now work as non-executive manager Of PLUS BHD also be in charge as IMAM at Masjid Hulu Selangor status Married with Hanizah Hamid which is teachers at MRSM KUALA KUBU BHARU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahari rahman (talkcontribs) 11:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

intro section[edit]

Recently, many entries have been removed because a reference was lacking or the person's notability was questioned by the editor - that is, if a rationale had been given at all. This had led to the removal of mainly, in my eyes, good-faithed, meaningful requests. I can't see on what principles this is based, because the intro section doesn't say a reference must be provided. In fact, such a restriction would be problematic, increasing the already existing recentism and providing opportunities for self-promotion (it's not an independent source that's required). And can't we expect editors to find these sources anyways? I see why it is beneficial to link to good, extensive, independent references, but how is any reference better than none? And btw, why does the intro section still include the recommendation to provide the date requested? How can we expect anyone to know which information is required, when we explicitly ask for information that none of the existing entries contains? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The introduction should say that at least one good, independent source must be provided. More concretely, I recommend a change from
Reference – add a link to a reference which identifies the person and/or highlights their notability
to something like
Reference – add at least one independent reference (in a reliable source that's independent of the proposed biographee) which identifies the person and/or highlights their notability. Web references are particularly helpful; links ("http://....") to the particular page(s) should be provided for these. References to published books and articles in periodicals are also acceptable.
So rewritten, the requirements wouldn't bias this list toward "recentism" beyond the "recentism" of Wikipedia as a whole. (And as a whole, yes, it is recentist, and I think unavoidably so, given the mass obsessions of its contributors and of the internet as a whole, and the fact that looking in books requires rising from the seated position in front of a computer and actually walking around.) I don't understand how a requirement for independent sources would encourage self-promotion. ¶ Meanwhile, the deletion of an entry doesn't mean that no article can be created: people are free to create their own draft articles or even (skipping the draft part) their own articles.
Incidentally, earlier today I removed a few entries that were merely sourced to IMDB or the person's own website or nowhere. If anyone thinks that the readdition of these entries would benefit Wikipedia, please feel free to revert me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall we just scrap the whole thing?[edit]

I wonder whether this page serves any purpose. I used to think that it was for the undereducated to request articles by the well educated; in that spirit, I think that I once asked for an article on some coefficient (or similar) used in statistical analysis: I genuinely wanted to know what it was for, and hoped that somebody would tell the world. These days, however, this page is so bloated by requests for articles that the requesters could create by themselves that the worthwhile requests are lost among them. In particular, there are all the requests for others to write about the requesters themselves. Most recent example: this, in which Daviddrum asks for an article on David Drum, an article for which he proposes as the sole reference the website of David Drum. (This addition was automatically accepted.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally useful to have a list oft missing articles. On my userpages in the German WP, I have created two lists of geographers who I think should have articles there, and there're many ones from English-speaking countries who don't have an article here as well. So I can assure that the majority of geographers listed here are really among the most important ones. However, you're right: I could probably write at least a stub article about everyone of them. It's just that I'd prefer a native speaker to do it. Maybe I'm just too aware that writing here is always a step onto "the large stage".
I have a suggestion, though: Splitting the list into two lists, one for living persons and one for deceased ones. The latter one wouldn't attract all those self-promotional entries and could rely on solid third-party sources like obituaries. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of splitting, Axolotl Nr.733. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

More on reference-free additions[edit]

A short time ago, Rubbish computer approved the addition to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession of

*[[Dr. Muhammad Asir Ajmal]] - Psychologist. Son of Dr. Muhammad Ajmal. Pioneer of [[Qualitative Research in Psychology]] in Pakistan. Author of numerous articles and essays.

Even putting aside the oddness of the proposed title, this puzzles me. Not a single reference is proffered. Why should we add to the clutter of that page with items that lack any reference? Or should we instead encourage this kind of thing? (Was I wrong to make this edit?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: I approved the edit because it was not disuptive. I think you should instead question the IP editor who made this edit. Here's one source I found that mentions him and helps establish notability. Sources can easily be found for reference-free additions using Google. Rubbish computer 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
True, Rubbish computer, it wasn't disruptive. But is the combination of "not disruptive" + "some sort of claim of notability" sufficient justification for inclusion? As it is, the page tells its readers: Information to include [...] Reference – add a link to a reference which identifies the person and/or highlights their notability (already far feebler than what I think is necessary). If it is sufficient, then I see no reason why the page shouldn't balloon to over one megabyte. Would anyone then be likely to look in it for ideas for articles? (Though I'm not sure whether anyone does so even now.) Certainly I'd take it off my own watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hoary: Fair enough; I did not know the guidelines of this page beforehand. Rubbish computer 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

profile a British-born Nigerian filmmaker, Willis Ikedum[edit]

Willis Ikedum's films has screened at various film festivals including Hollywood Black Film Festival, Africa International Film Festival, In-Short Film Festival and had won 4 awards including Best director and best screenplay awards respectively. Willis Ikedum (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willis Ikedum, which closed with delete at 02:37, 26 August 2015. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

a full time member of Fords design team[edit]

Jordan Meadows is a full time member of Fords design team with recent significant contributions to the exterior design of the 2014 Mustang. In addition to teaching at Art Center he also serves as an independent consultant providing transportation design solutions for non-automotive industries. Prior to this, Jordan Meadows was Design Manager responsible for guidance and oversight of design team operations at Mazdas North American Design Center. During his tenure the team completed three noteworthy concept cars: Nagare, Kiyora and Furai. Prior to joining Mazda, he spent three years as an exterior team leader at Volkswagen Design Center Europe, a semi-autonomous design research facility established to support the VW brand portfolio. While at Volkswagen, Meadows assisted in the development and realization of an all-new advanced design facility for the Volkswagen group in Potsdam, Germany. Before Volkswagen, Meadows spent five years at Chrysler as a senior designer focusing on both exterior and interior design. During his tenure with Chrysler, Meadows was the principal designer for three concept cars: the Jeep Willys, Dodge Kahuna and Jeep Compass. He also provided key support and was active in the development of the Dodge Sling-shot and Jeep Trio concept cars. Meadows holds a masters degree from the Royal College of Art in London, England and a bachelors degree from the Rhode Island School of Design, in Providence, Rhode Island. He currently resides in Los Angeles CA, where he holds a position of Design Specialist at Fords Strategic Design Group.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.126.236 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptance of junk additions[edit]

A large percentage of the items in this grotesquely bloated page are junk. Now and again, I remove some of the flab (latest example). Is this wrong of me?

It's a losing battle. The bloat just keeps on coming. Here's what happened after I removed nine kilobytes:

  • SPA Articleroshdy added two items. One's for Mohamed Roshdy and the other is for المخرج محمد رشدي (which I confess to being unable to read, but anyway a person with the exact same birthday and sources). Aside from this one source, all the sources are obvious junk: Facebook, etc. And if you click on the single not-obviously-junk source, you'll see that it has almost no content. This didn't worry Amccann421, who accepted these two additions (of which that with a roman-letter title was obviously out of alphabetical order).

Here's what the page says at the top:

This strikes me as unfortunately vague. I believe that it should instead say something close to one or other of the following:

  • Feel free to add anything that might possibly meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria if somebody bothered to look for evidence. Later, somebody will have to bear in mind that biographies of living people are held to more stringent standards than other articles but that's not your problem.

I'll take the first of that pair. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC) ... amended to acknowledge Anomalocaris's response, Hoary (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Hoary: Actually, the fact that the sole source proffered for Eric Waugh (painter) was ericwaugh.com did worry Anomalocaris. In my approval comment, I said something about how there should be sources not affiliated with the subject of the proposed article. Unfortunately, unlike the reviewer's comment for "Revert changes", which display in the article history, the reviewer's comment for "Accept revision", which I dutifully entered, as I always do, are not displayed in the article history. So, I have gone back and added some external links to assist others in deciding if Eric Waugh (painter) should be created at all, and if so, what to put in the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016[edit]

International Wiki Helper (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced. Make a request for the article here. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey George Weiner exhibiting a collection of the Art Deco automotive radiator hood ornaments (car mascots) by master glass artisan R. Lalique[edit]

10:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)86.9.25.172 (talk) http://www.abbeyfairs.co.uk/antique-fairs/gg%20weiner%20lalique%20book.jpg?attredirects=0 www.uniquelaliquemascots.co.uk

What do you want to say about this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of references[edit]

I think we really should add a maximum number of references (say, five?), in order to keep this site navigable. In most cases where entries look like this, it's because of puffery, with every passing mention one can find being listed. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

An excellent idea, Axolotl Nr.733. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A registered user may better post such vast content on a subpage of an own account page and point to this information on these requests pages. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Bloat again[edit]

Attention Richi, Yinf, and particularly 79.177.10.202: Even after the latest additions were (rightly) removed, the entry for one Isaac Pierre Racine was grotesquely bloated. I therefore applied my editorial machete to it. As what I left there indicates, I copied the bulkiest version that I noticed to the IP's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, I have notified the IP on their talkpage since IP's cannot receive pings. Yinf (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Yinf: if I'd ever known that, I'd forgotten it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ambassadors section[edit]

Please rename this section as Ambassadors, consuls, diplomats. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing sections[edit]

Missing are sections targeting:

  • public servants and community workers
  • judges and prosecutors - should get a separate subsection at Law.

If no one objects I will create these (sub)sections soon. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can Someone Archive a completed request?[edit]

Robert E. Valett the psychologist is now completed, is the request supposed to be archived or deleted or left or what? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ECU needs review?!?![edit]

Does anyone know why I, an extended confirmed user, cannot edit the page without being automatically accepted? - TheMagnificentist 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Hi, I saw your edit summary while reviewing the PCs. An IP user edited the article immediately before you, and their revisions were still pending. Any edits made by any user after still-pending edits (except full reverts) are not automatically accepted. Linguisttalk|contribs 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh! That makes sense! Thanks for the explanation. - TheMagnificentist 20:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)