This is an archive of past discussions with User:Omnis Scientia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, All The Knowledge in the World. Welcome to Wikipedia.
I am FlightTime, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links and information to help you get started. You are welcome to leave questions, comments on my talk page at anytime here.
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
If you need help. You can try our live IRC help channel #wikipedia-en-helpconnect, or click here for my talk page if you have any questions, or you can ask at the help desk.
You can create your own "Test" page by clicking on this link > User:All The Knowledge in the World/test < This will open an edit window on a page with that title, add something in the edit window and scroll down and click the Save page button and you've just created your first page.
Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better.
When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bob Gibson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel)20:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There are important statistics missing and not highlighted in Bob Gibson's page. Some external links also provide no information which is why I was replacing them with more informative ones.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi All The Knowledge in the World. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Thank you for the warm welcome, @Hipal! And thank you for the advice and all the policy links. I will be sure to read them.
I've been editing for quite some time and only just created this account so I could contribute more in my spare time. So all advice as to improve this wonderful site is welcome! Once again, thanks for the welcome! All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to John Roseboro, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you only undid the one edit you think is wrong rather than undo all my work.
I was merely reorganizing the page so it is more readable and adding more information and context. I am a baseball fan and this ballplay deserves a better page than the one he has at the moment. A little patience next time will be much appreciated. Thank you. All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sandy Koufax, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sandy Koufax, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bob Gibson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sandy Koufax, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
For your information, citations on quote boxes should be at the end, especially where facts are being asserted in the source field that might be challenged. That way it is clear the entire box is being supported by a reference.
Please also be informed that edit summaries are recommended for all but relatively minor edits. I don't consider myself perfect in that department, but not using them at all makes it look like you don't want people to be aware of what you have done. Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, alright. I did not know this. Thanks for the info. I was actually just adding the dashes in order to distinguish the quote from the source and just did it because I saw one quote box like on another page.
Howdy. In case my edit summary is still too vague: Baseball Reference is a fine site, but there is a section of it that is constructed as an open-editing wiki. Those are noted the "BR Bullpen". You can read through the last discussion at WP:RSNhere. That discussion also highlights prior discussions at WT:BASEBALL as well which may add more history. Let me know if any of that is unclear. Sam Kuru(talk)12:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. Usually I don't have issues with finding sources but, when I do (which is rare), then I take the first thing I find. I'll be more careful next time around.
I've read all the discussions on 'BR Bullpen' and will try and find seperate citations for all the others and crosscheck with WP:RS. And I will be more careful with sources from now on. Thanks a bunch for your help. Always appreciate it! -- All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CurryTime7-24 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Probably notable, but additional citations from reliable sources attesting to this are needed.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lonnie Wheeler and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, All The Knowledge in the World!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casey Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Law. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Lonnie Wheeler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Allan Roth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thank you for working on the lead paragraphs, and particularly for removing the reference to his horsemanship. I tried to convince some other editors that it should not be in the lead, but I didn’t have enough persuasive power. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No problem! I agree with you. The mention of his horsemanship was, to me at least, unnecessary info for the lead paragraphs. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
John Clem Clarke, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Glenn H. Greenberg, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TartarTorte19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing the above article. A preliminary read through tells me that you have carried out a load of work on this: well done! All being well, we should complete the task in the not-too-distant future - but there is no deadline. As you may know, the process is recorded at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mickey_Mantle/GA1 I must remember that the article is in American English and that you are at least five hours behind me. Please bear with me as we go through this important article to bring it back to GA standard. Any questions, go ahead and ask me on that Talk page. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello again! Would you mind adding in (say) this book in "Books", as (part) justification for his nickname "The Commerce Comet": Winter and Payne, "Mickey Mantle: The Commerce Comet" (Schwartz & Wade, 2017)? I'd no sooner upgraded the article to GA when it occurred to me that I'd overlooked both evidence for or discussion of that nickname and "The Mick" one! In case anyone complains, would you mind adding in somewhere appropriate in the text about each nickname, with a reference to each? Thank you and all the best for the future! Billsmith60 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay so I couldn't find a link to the book but I did find a SABR article on the 1956 All-Star Game which has the nickname in the title. I've added it to the line where the 1956 All-Star Game is mentioned.
Also, I should add that you accidentally added Disambiguation links to the article while going through it one last time. Would you mind just checking it yourself? I tried to find it but I couldn't. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hiya! Oh dear, the dreaded disamguation... No problem, I'll fix that and add in the book. Also, I heard 'the Mick' nickname years ago but not the 'Comet' one. Could they be swapped round in the first line, and I'll do so? Billsmith60 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
You're sort of right. While the "Commerce Comet" came first (a hotshot nickname by a sportswriter), people call him "The Mick" far more often so I'll reverse the order on that basis.
I had noticed that the article erroneously stated that Koufax had invested in an electronics business without any substantiating information. I corrected the article to state that he had invested in an FM Radio Station and provided a link to the evidence (KNJO Thousand Oaks, CA). His business partner stated in the linked article was Sy Blonder - my father. While the article stated that KNJO began broadcasting in 1963, The station was built from scratch beginning in 1960. I was a child at the time but do recall meetings between my father and Sandy in those years. Please update the article with the information I have provided. Sblonder (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello there!
To clarify, I didn't add the electronics business; it was already there when I began working to improve this article. However, I think you may be mixing the timeline a little. In 1960, according to Koufax's autobiography and Jane Leavy's bio on him, Koufax had already invested in an electronics store which he then sold out to his then-partner after deciding to give another go at his baseball career.
The radio business came later. It started in 1960, yes, but Koufax invested in it around 1962/63, after he became a star - source: Leavy's book; Koufax himself confirmed it, according Leavy. Hence, both the electronics business and radio station are true.
If it were possible, I would definitely add his radio investment - along with the famous Sandy Koufax Motel - but it isn't central to his career. It was simply one of the businesses he invested in. The electronics business is since Koufax, in his autobiography, said he threw away his equipment after the 1960 season, deciding to fully focus on his electronics business.
Hence, as per the rules of a baseball article, I cannot add that Koufax invested in a radio station in 1963. Otherwise, I would have to add other non-baseball activities he may have done. I hope you understand why I cannot. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The famous Sandy Koufax Motel? Seriously? The reason I put forth my view on this was because I was told that the reason Sandy was a partner in the business was because he was an avid audiophile. This radio station was the first FM Stereo entity in Southern California. You could say there was a common theme to this business and his electronics venture. Anyway, thanks for indulging me - it would be nice to see Sandy once again before he's gone but I have some nice memories in any event. Sblonder (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's the Tropicana Motel. It wasn't as well known when Koufax owned a share of it - known as the 'Sandy Koufax Tropicana Motel' and his name certainly helped its popularity grow - but became so afterwards as a stop for rock n' roll bands on tour. Jim Morrison, Joan Jett, all those types.
Also, you are absolutely right! Koufax was and is an avid audiophile and it would not surprise me to know that was one of the reasons he bought a share in the FM radio. He also liked tinkering with electronics around the house - built his own stereo system when living in L.A. in the 60s.
You should know though, I looked around and Koufax and your father Sy Blonder are both mentioned in KYLA which is the main article for the FM Radio station you refer to.
Yes - Sandy came to our home a few times and I went with my Mother to his small house up in the hills where he lived with his mother. I particularly remember a charity event the station did where he came and played with the other DJs and I acted as autograph broker for him - annoying him endlessly with gloves, balls, caps, and whatever else people had on the other side of the fence. He dated my cousin and we thought of his family. Another memorable episode is when we went to a practice at Dodger Stadium and I got to go into the locker room and met the whole team. Koufax said that if I was older maybe I could be a bat boy. My parents went to a lot of games as he gave them tickets to many but also he gave them tickets to the 1963 World Series. I got a Pennant. Of course I watched him pitch on TV but that was about it. Sblonder (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Wow... What an amazing memory to have with you. I'm sure that, if you ever met him again, he would remember you. From what I've read and heard, he's a gentle and kind human being who doesn't forget old acquaintences.
Well that sentiment was tested. It was 1966 and Sandy was setup at the May Company downtown to sign autographs for his autobiography. I heard on the radio that he would be there and my Dad, who was recently divorced, had me for the day nearby. I went over there expecting a happy reunion and found him sitting there like Santa Claus with tons of people lined up with their books. I didn't have any money with me tp buy a book so I tried to get his attention by yelling my name to him and asking if he remembered me. He didn't look happy in the first place with all the mayhem and with his retirement I'm sure he must have been struggling. Anyway he finally looked at me and said yeah yeah I remember and waved me away. I was crushed I was about 9 at the time and must have cried for two days. I begged my mother to call him up and straighten things out but at this point, the radio station had been sold and Camelot was over.
Many ears later my stepbrother (my Dad had remarried and adopted 2 kids) ran into Sandy at a sporting event. He introduced himself as Sy Blonder's son and Sandy looked at him very puzzled and said "Stevie"? at which point my stepbrother explained the adoption. I guess it was a happy ending to a very emotional disconnect that happened decades earlier. Thanks for the opportunity to share my experience. Sblonder (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Your story actually rather humanizes him in my eyes. I imagine 1966 was in fact a very painful year for him what with his retirement and the pain he had in his arm... must have been a very stressful time. I'm glad this had a happy ending for you.
And I should be thanking you for sharing your experience.
Just a reminder, as I mentioned above, your father and Mr. Koufax are both mentioned in KYLA, with Mr. Koufax as co-owner and President of the radio station and Mr. Blonder as having built it. First paragraph in the 'History' section. The call letters have changed since from 'KNJO' to 'KYRA'. I hope this was helpful! -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the reference to that page. If only I still had the personalized autographed picture he gave me when I was a kid. I stupidly brought it to school and it was promptly torn up by the school bully. If only I would have just framed it and not tried to be a big macher :-) Sblonder (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Mickey Mantle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mickey Mantle for comments about the article, and Talk:Mickey Mantle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Billsmith60 -- Billsmith60 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
A word of warning about the DYK system: while something like the 150 HR from each side of the plate might be a decent fact to promote there, be advised that what should be a straightforward process is an absolute torture! After getting a hook approved in principle for my one and only GA nomination, it sat for ages and ages before obfuscation and bureaucracy made me withdraw it Billsmith60 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, I've tweaked the Lead to remove Mickey's wife's name and the ref. to the Betty Ford Center. These are well addressed in the text and not needed in the Lead, which should be all about him. Those are things my review should have noted but better late than never. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It's an interesting article for sure! Alas, there is already a New York Times article about his house and hometown in the 'further reading' section. Two would seem rather excessive, I think. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I thought it meant "to edit or remove text". God, have I been using that word wrong!? Edit: I think you're right. It does mean "to edit" but in the sense that edit out sensitive information. Oh dear... Thanks for bringing attention to it. I'll use something else now... I need a minute first though. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
RE "you removed all the information of his childhood..." ???
Greetings, Omnis Scientia.
In light of all the hard work you've been putting in on the Clemente article, I can't believe this is anything other than a good-faith misunderstanding, or mis-read (or, on my part, a failure to make a case clearly). In any event, for convenience sake, here is a side-by-side screenshot of my recently reverted changes—i.e. Early life & Personal life—alongside your previous version
https://www.mediafire.com/view/guu3llg0eialm5p/Screenshot_2023-09-02_at_3.47.42_PM.jpg/file
It should be plain to see that I did not remove material but rather expanded the sections in question—and did so with material directly addressing his religious upbringing, regarding which there was nothing prior to my edit. As for Early life, what had been sentences 2 thru 4 of the 1st paragraph of a 3-para section simply became a paragraph unto itself in a 4-para section.
As for Personal life, I did remove the categorical—and, at best, wildly misleading–declaration, "He was a devout Catholic" (misleading because of his relatively well-documented Baptist upbringing), while retaining the cited William Doino article in order to support my sentence acknowledging the very real possibility of an official conversion by RC to Catholicism around the time of his marriage in November 1964.
As for the verifiable facts of the case (as I'd thought my edit made clear), Clemente's mother specifically states to RC's 1973 biographer Kal Wagenheim—who, btw, was fluent in Spanish—that not only had they raised RC as a Baptist, but that he enjoyed the experience (i.e "went to church and liked singing the hymns"), while acknowledging that "he married in the Catholic Church"—which, presumably, was done out of respect for—or in deference to—his Catholic fiancé and her family. And remember, this marriage did not take place until a few months after his 30th b'day.
Likewise, Clemente's 1998 biographer Bruce Markusen unambiguously states, "Although her youngest son would eventually marry in the Catholic church, the Baptist upbringing would help lay the groundwork for Roberto's strong sense of values." Moreover, the Manny Sanguillen quote cited by Wagenheim—in which Sanguillen, who did not come to the Pirates till '69, recalls that Roberto not only still "loved those hymns" but had actually told Manny he "felt Baptist"—does tend to make whatever conversion Clemente may have undergone seem a tad less than whole-hearted.
In fact, the only thing I can think of—and the more I think of it, the more I think this must be THE thing—that might lead one to believe Clemente was raised a Catholic is the aforementioned William Doino article cited in Personal life. Given his out-of-the-blue mention of a Father Alvin Gutierrez who "knew the Clementes well," one might reasonably infer that "Clementes" refers to RC's family of origin, and that Father G was a Puerto Rican whose acquaintance with said "Clementes" dated back to—or even well before—Roberto's birth. However, given the evidence I've already cited, I assumed this was not the case; but just to be certain, I did a search for said priest, and, not surprisingly, Gutierrez is a Pittsburgh guy: https://www.newspapers.com/image/141496516/?clipping_id=131114688 Thus, the only Clementes he would've known would be the family started by Vera & Roberto in Nov '64, an ever-expanding family he presumably saw in church on many regular-season Sundays from that point forward.
Okay, I think I've covered it all as best I can. And, just so you know, I don't do reverts (much less un-reverts), outside of a blatant case of vandalism—which this is obviously not. In any case, it's easy enough to recreate my edit at any point without reverting. But even that is something I would much prefer not do until I know we're on the same page. So, again, thanks for all the work you've done, and I look forward to hearing back from you. DavidESpeed (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I believe you are putting too much emphasis on his religion in "Early life". That part should go in "Personal life" IF it is true.
Secondly, my apologies. I thought you removed info about his parents on a quick glance and that is on me. It was quite late where I live and I was doing final rounds and saw that first paragraph talking not about his family but about his supposed Baptist religious upbringing. Again, my apologies; I only realized my error now when you pointed out to me.
Thirdly, I have done some research since and, respectfully, you are mistaken about Clemente's religion. He was very much a Catholic.
In David Maraniss' book on Clemente, he states that his mother Luisa was born a Baptist and converted to Catholicism when she married her second husband, Clemente's father. Markusen's book says that his mother's OWN Baptist upbringing shaped Clemente, mostly because his father Melchor was not that religious. Hence the heavy emphasis of Baptism in his early life. However, he was never an ACTUAL Baptist. Clemente was Catholic for his whole life; he loved Baptist hymns, yes, but he was baptized as a Catholic. Later on, when he married Vera, he became more devout to the Catholic Church than he was before.
I appreciate the respect and the prompt reply. But I have to believe that the research you referenced took place some time ago, and that now you're just speaking extemporaneously (at least I hope that's the case), because the statements you’ve attributed to Markusen and Maraniss bear little relation—and in the latter case, are almost diametrically opposed—to what they actually wrote. But before I address those (accompanied, in each case, by the relevant page image), we need to take a look at the most pertinent and credible source of all, which, for whatever reason, you've neglected to mention.
1— Wagenheim's 1973 bio, Clemente!, the one book written while Luisa was still alive and in which she—as does each of the book's principal interview subjects–has an entire chapter in which to recount her recollections of–and relationship to–Clemente (which, not surprisingly, almost immediately cites her own early conversion from Catholic to Baptist):
Wagenheim, Kal (1973) Clemente. Praeger Press. p. 14.
Three sentences later, Luisa plainly states, "We raised Roberto as a Baptist—he liked singing the hymns,” before adding, “but he was married in the Catholic Church.” Now, if you have any actual evidence of Clemente converting to Catholicism and/or abandoning the Baptist faith prior to meeting Vera, please cite it—with a link and/or publication, with page #—and I will gratefully incorporate it in a revised version of my original edit. But also bear in mind the later passage in Wagenheim, p. 161, wherein we learn from his teammate and close friend, Manny Sanguillen, that, as of no later than 1967 (Sangy's first season as a Pirate), Roberto not only still "loved those hymns," but still "felt Baptist" [emphasis added], even expressing the wish that some of those hymns be played at his funeral.
As you can see, the relevant quote comes three paragraphs into his book, prior to which he makes zero mention of Luisa’s “own upbringing,” religious or otherwise, much less the religious conversion she underwent. After 2 paras & one sentence (all of which deal with her strictly as an adult), Markusen writes, “Luisa attended church regularly, bringing Roberto with her to Baptist services in Carolina. Although her youngest son would eventually marry in the Catholic Church, the Baptist upbringing would help lay the groundwork for Roberto’s strong set of values.” This clearly is not referring to Luisa’s own upbringing, but rather that which she gave her son. In fact, it’s completely consistent with Luisa’s own account in Wagenheim.
Moreover, I would argue that the point Markusen makes absolutely belongs in "Early life", precisely because that “strong set of values” so obviously impacted his off-field endeavors, not to mention his most famous quote (about not “wasting your time on this earth”), and, of course, his all too famous death.
This one’s really troubling. Rather than stating, as you claim, that Luisa converted from Baptist to Catholic when marrying Melchor, the conversion Maraniss actually recounts is that of Luisa from Catholic to Baptist, along with her entire family, while still a child. Again, much like Markusen, perfectly consistent with Luisa’s statement to Wagenheim, "I converted to the Baptist faith when I was quite young". DavidESpeed (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I read the part about Luisa wrong; thank you for pointing that out. But it is still incorrect to say that Clemente was a Baptist. He was christened a Catholic but attended Baptist services with his mother. He was raised by a Baptist mother, not in the Baptist Church. There is a difference between the two. What I will say is that it definitely had an influence on his life. Hence, it should definitely be touched on.
Please do this but write it in the "Personal life" part because that is almost always where personal matters - relationships, religion, etc. - are discussed. And the section on this page NEEDS info like this because, at this moment, it only discusses his marriage very briefly and his Catholicism very more briefly. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, what I took from my initial reading was that Luisa converted to Catholicism as a formality upon her marriage but remained Baptist in practice. I was mistaken. However, it is clear she did not convert to Catholicism when she married her second husband - Clemente's father. Her children from her second marriage, however, were christened in the Catholic faith.
Melchor was elderly when his children were born and was, as I stated, not that religious. So, he did not have as much of a hand in his childrens' upbringing as Luisa did. All this is to say that Clemente did not have to convert to Catholicism when he married Vera: he already was one.
And I would not trust oral histories, by the way; that is what Wagenheim's book is. Peoples' direct accounts are often bias and they can remember things incorrectly. Markusen and Maraniss are far more reliable because they are well researched biographies. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Omnis, ¡Ay, caramba!
Ah, where to begin...
First of all, neither Maraniss nor Markusen contradict Luisa’s statement, much less support the as-yet-undocumented claim that he was "christened in the Catholic faith”. (As I said before, if you do have documentation, please bring it on.) As I already pointed out, that 2-sentence passage from Markusen not only echoes Luisa’s comment, it takes it a step farther, stating that all those years spent, attending Baptist services with his mom, played a significant role in shaping Roberto's values. And seeing as how “values”—precisely because of the circumstances of his death—are, for better or worse, almost certainly what Clemente will forever be remembered for, even more so than for his remarkable career, it does seem inconceivable to me that one would not include this in “Early life.” That doesn’t mean one can’t or shouldn’t touch on it in “Personal life” as well (as I attempted to in my reverted edit), this time emphasizing the later-life–i.e. Catholic–part of the equation.
BTW, Maraniss, for his part, doesn't even address the issue of Clemente's religious upbringing or affiliation. The word “Catholic” appears exactly twice in his book:
1) re Melchor’s presumably less than devout Catholicism (that being the quote from Roberto’s older brother Justino, which, literally, is “not very Catholic”; and 2), regarding the church at which the mass was held following Roberto’s death (the same one that had hosted his wedding).
BTW #2, regarding Wagenheim and oral history. Actually, that's not what his book is. It's a hybrid: biographical chapters, alternating with the relatively brief chapters featuring first-hand accounts by a number of hugely important people in his life and career: e.g. Luisa, Roberto Marin, Pedrin Zorilla, Arturo Garcia, Phil Dorsey, and other close friends like attorney Efren Bernier and Pirates trainer Tony Bartirome. But really, to a greater or lesser extent, all three of these books are hybrids. Both Markusen and Maraniss draw heavily on interviews, the problem being that in their cases, the interviewees are either 25 or 33 years older and farther removed from the events in question, making their recollections far less reliable than those who spoke with Wagenheim.
While I cannot absolutely guarantee that Clemente was christened Catholic, it is far more likely he was because, at the time, that was the practice. His father came from a Catholic family so his children were going to be Catholic.
There is a reason why there is only one line about Clemente's religion in this article: that is all we know. If you write was raised a Baptist and converted to Catholicism, it will eventually be removed because even in the sources you are giving, nothing says the same EXCEPT a first person account by his mother which is looked down up here since it is the word of only ONE person. However, you can write about his mother's influence on his religious upbringing because we have reliable sources on that.
And, again, not in the "Early life". Religion was not just his early life, it was his whole life. It is why it should be in the "Personal life" section. Look at Hank Aaron's page; religion is discussed in the Personal life section.
And I don't know who Richard Rossi was until you just told me (Full disclosure: I'm not American or Christian). He definitely sounds like a terrible person.
As for the mention of the canonization effort: my recent edits to the page were because someone made two seperate pages which violated WP:NPOV and I had to move a lot of material from there back to the main page. Personally, I think it is fine there; it shows how highly esteemed he is among Latin-American Catholics even if it was unlikely to have happened. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm basically saying you should write it but don't make him into Baptist - we don't have any solid proof. Maraniss, Markusen, and the Society of American Baseball Research all say he was Catholic so it is safe to say he was definitely Catholic. Instead, write about what we DO know. His mother and her Baptist faith clearly had an influence on his life and it should be highlighted. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Omnis, I appreciate your honesty in disclosing the fact that you're not American (and, in retrospect, perhaps I should've then posed the obvious follow-up question). Based on both that disclosure, not to mention the fact that, as best I can tell, many of the sources you've cited—and, now, regarding the Clemente lede, the Wiki style guide link provided—seem not to support your claims and/or edits, it finally occurs to me to ask—for lack of any better explanation (since you seem to be eminently reasonable, civil and open to discussion)—whether English is perhaps also not your first language. (No offense meant; indeed, if it's not your native tongue, then you've already gained far greater command of it than any I can now or will ever claim, of any besides my own.) I'm just trying to get my head around this seemingly immovable impasse—wherein very little of what I say, or evidence I convey, seems to sink in—and find some way past it. In any event, let me address, in reverse order, this Clemente edit and some key points of your previous message.
1) First off, I suppose I posted that "thank you" for this last edit simply for having had at least the good sense, this time around, not to completely obliterate the info (even if its current placement makes little sense to me).
But regarding that lede and, more to the point, the guideline you've cited, back on July 19, 2015, shortly after having stumbled upon the relevant Clemente quote in the 6/7/55 Post-Gazette, I added the middle name "Enrique" to his wiki, along with the explanatory note—without which such an addition would obviously, and justifiably, have quickly been reverted. Does it not seem odd—dare I say instructive?—that in the intervening 8 years-plus (especially as regards so high-profile an article as this), not one editor has seen fit to relocate that note, much less delete it?
But getting back to your edit, that guideline takes great pains to stress that ledes are NOT automatically exempt from citation requirements, and that "[t]he presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." As it says, a "case-by-case" determination. In fact, the type of material it recommends presenting without references is strictly confined to that which is covered, usually in greater detail, within the body of the article. But by definition, the person's full name—as per long-established Wiki practice—does not fall into that category. Moreover, this particular full name, as per the description accompanying my last edit, definitely meets the guideline's criteria—i.e. "Complex, current, or controversial subjects [which] may require many citations." (Potential controversy, in this case, stemming from the relative obscurity of RC's actual full name, as opposed to the longstanding, seemingly indestructible story of uni # 21 representing the number of letters in his full name [so indestructible, in fact, that said story is currently stated as fact within the wiki itself]; and complexity involved in simply explaining how we've come to learn the truth.)
BTW, I'm almost scared to do this—for fear you'll feel compelled to 'fix' this as well, but speaking of obscure birth names (and thus putting aside several other examples I could offer of b'ball player ledes containing multiple, miscellaneous citations), here's one precedent particularly relevant to this case. One from baseball's inner circle (and who, for the very saddest of reasons, has probably already been mentioned in the same breath as Roberto more times than anyone could hope to count, or care to remember), whose full name fully warranted the lede citation—which, in turn, has, quite properly, gone untouched for well over a decade:
Wow. This has taken a bit longer than I thought. Maybe I'll just leave it at that for now, see what you make of all this, and address the other points later. DavidESpeed (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
English is one of my two main languages. The other is indeed my native language.
With regards to citations in lead: of course I cannot check every single page for lead citations. Sometimes I miss them. I am simply following the Wikipedia rules where I can as I have been told by other editors.
Look. Clemente's page is a mess and it has been neglected. Most of the recent editing was me because I found the citations to be a mess and a lot of wrong information. If you wish for more discussion on Clemente and any potential major additions to this page, please continue in Talk:Roberto Clemente.
Nobe Kawano, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Ed Linn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
The first reference is mainly about Tash's husband and only barely mentions her in passing, 2nd one is an interview on a blog and the 3rd one is a biography of a non-independent source (being her publisher). Not even close to meeting guidelines at the moment. Book reviews could be also a good way of demonstrating notability per WP:NAUTHOR, so please add those if you can find them.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sarvenaz Tash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sarvenaz Tash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Frank Finch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
pretty much all those sources are authored by the subject
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Snyder and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hi Omnis Scientia! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Liz. I was resorting/cleaning up a few categories which caused a VERY minor issue with one user. No worries though; we have talked it over! -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Please do not edit war over categorization, Omnis Scientia. If an editor has reverted your edit, adding or removing the category, the proper action is to start a discussion which I see you've done on the editor's talk page which is a good step. However, you persisted in removing articles from these categories. You say that some of these were small categories but that wasn't always true and, in fact, emptying a category just because it might be small isn't always justified.
I recommend you revert your edits, especially when you are removing dozens of articles from a category. But edit warring is something that often results in a loss of editing privileges so please do not do this in the future. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I promise there is no edit warring going on. We have talked it over. There was a misunderstanding. Additionally, I did not empty out any category but merely resorted them to more specific categories where they will be easier to find.
Hello @Liz. This reply is to tell you that the issue between myself and the other user has been resolved and was done so amicably! I admit that I may have acted rather defensively in the heat of the moment and I sincerely apologize for that. The edits I made have been reverted.
Just a quick reminder to be careful when you're moving people to a "by century" subcategory — I've come across two examples today alone where you typed "cenutry" instead of "century".
The typo obviously isn't a big deal itself — we all make 'em sometimes — but the problem is that if you leave the typo there and don't fix it, then the page is stuck sitting in a redlinked category that doesn't actually exist, and somebody else ends up having to come in and fix it for you. So when you're adding articles to categories, don't just walk away: check the page afterward to make sure that the category you've added is actually a blue link. If it's red because you made a typo in it, then you need to take a second to fix your own typo instead of making it other people's job to fix it for you.
One other thing you might want to consider, if you're going to be recategorizing articles on a regular basis, is to add HotCat in your preferences — it's a plug-in script that can really simplify the process, because it adds little buttons next to each category so that you can modify, remove or add categories a lot more easily. It also becomes a lot easier to tell if you're trying to add a category that doesn't exist, or have made a typo when trying to add a category, because as you're typing a category name it'll give you "autocomplete" suggestions kind of like the search bar — so if those suddenly disappear, you'll know there's a problem with the category you're typing before you click save. It really is a helpful tool, so you may want to check it out if you're going to be modifying categories a lot. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Why did you attempt to depopulate this category without a discussion and then nominate it for deletion? If you disagree with its existence, you can nominate it for discussion.--User:Namiba16:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Understand that I did not do so intentionally. I was merely moving articles about people in categories with "Jews and Judaism from..." to populate the categories with Jewish people by state.
Chiming in here. Thanks for your enthusiasm @Omnis Scientia! When you make categories like this please be sure to integrate them into the existing categories. For example Category:American Jews from Nevada, should also be added as a non-diffusing subcategory of People from Nevada. Based on what It's probably a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with how categories work as that should help prevent problems in the future. I'd encourage you to check out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to learn some more about this area of wikipedia. Mason (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I should also explain: I found Category:American Jews by state or territory which were created by a user who has since been blocked and hence left the work unfinished. The options were to either delete them or populate and I decided to fill them.
In hindsight, I have made a few mistakes while doing which I apologize for. I'm still quite new to categorization so I do appreciate the patience everyone has shown and the advice they have given, including you. So thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If I misunderstood, @Mason, I do apologize but I believe you said there has been talk of combining the two. Indeed that was you rationale to oppose my speedy renames that would have restricted two categories to state only.
In the legal sense, D.C. can be and has been referred to as a territory. It also shares the characteristics of U.S. territories like Puerto Rico. The one difference is, due it being the capital, the people can vote for President.
It was in one law but, reading further, the politician who refered to is as "territory" in the bill did so in bad faith.
So how would you name the category if not "state or territory" if you don't consider D.C. either? Because I don't think it is correct put in the insular areas of the U.S. into such a category but leave out the country's capital.
@Omnis Scientia in response to your question about movement towards state or territory. I meant that several categories have been changed from state to state or territory; not that the change had been approved for the entire tree.
@Koavf, Omnis is still learning the ropes of categories. But you're right that until there's a broaden category name, like state or territory, dc shouldn't be included in a "by state" category. But I think that the idea with "by state or territory" is that the the specific nature of how the region relates to the united states isn't a defining feature for that specific category. Mason (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
If we want to include Washington, D.C. in "x by state" or "x by state or territory" categories, then we should do so systematically and with some uniformity, e.g. by always having a sortkey of "+Washington, D.C." or somesuch. So if users think this is valuable, there should probably be an RfC on this. Either way, I don't want anyone to waste his time, so I value and appreciate OS doing what he's doing and don't want to see it undone for no reason. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up and thanks for being a woman willing to edit Wikipedia: I know we haven't always been as friendly to women as we need to be. Please let me know if you ever see anything unwelcoming on this site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Washington, D.C. is not a state or a territory. I don't know how to say this again. It is a federal district and can be in categories of things like "American [x] by city". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I solicited this CfD above and you didn't give it to me (likely as it didn't seem to exist at the time). Washington, D.C. is not a state or territory so it should not be categorized as one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
My point is that the norm is for Washington, DC as well as Puerto Rico and other insular areas are to be included in this type of category. Mason (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison, I'm assuming I can continue realigning the categories. Of course, I will now wait until the pages have been renamed to clear up the confusion entirely but just to be safe, I thought I should ask. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
That was a seperate conversation and I did respond and @Mason did explain what had happened. But the Cfd was started by somebody else and well after this conversation took place. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
But there was a speedy Cfd (which was used as a basis for the Cfd) where the informal consensus was "state or territory" should be the norm. But the consensus for what are U.S. territories began at the Cfd which I did not start.
Since Washington, D.C. is not a state or territory, it shouldn't be categorized as a state or territory. That is what is the wrong thing here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I have asked over and over again and you have not. From the second comment I made here, you just ignored it. You have shown me a CfD that states "other recent consensuses to use "by state or territory" includ[e] Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and other insular areas". Where was this decided? I have asked this over and over again and someone else responded with "Hey, it's your responsibility to prove my claims". That is rude. I am asking again: do you have any evidence of this prior consensus? Where was this decided? What evidence did anyone provide that Washington, D.C. is a territory, when it isn't? I am still waiting for this almost a month later and asking a half-dozen times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There was no such consensus at the time you began this conversation but there have been quite a lot since. And you ended that conversation amicably.
You have shown me a CfD that states "other recent consensuses to use "by state or territory" includ[e] Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and other insular areas". Where was this decided?
Can we both agree that it is factually not true that Washington, D. C. is not a state, territory, or insular area? We are agreed on that, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
And I am telling you I do not know!
I'm restraining myself because you are a veteran editor of Wikipedia but I think you are being incredibly unfair. Perhaps ask one of the other editors in the Cfd below who have been involved in Categorization longer than I have.
I think it's time for this discussion to end. koavf, Omnis Scientia has replied multiple times. I see that you are not satisfied with their response but I think they have no more to say here and it's verging into harassment territory. It can be difficult to track down where in the myriad of CFD discussions that any precedent was set and there are only 1 or 2 editors here that I think have the encyclopedic knowledge to be able to track down the answers you are looking for. I think it's time for you both to move on from this issue or proceed with a new CFD nomination where the issue can be fully discussed. This back-and-forth and escalating tension doesn't serve any purpose to resolve a dispute. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Without any explanatory edit summary, and using tools, I noticed you have removed a number of cats from articles. The removal is not only unexplained, but I cannot divine the reason. Perhaps you can explain. See, for example,
20:34, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Willy Workman removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:34, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Spencer Weisz removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:31, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Shawn Weinstein removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:27, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Robbie Weingard removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:25, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Neal Walk removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat
20:22, 6 December 2023 diff hist +14 Alex Tyus removed Category:Israeli American; added Category:Naturalized citizens of Israel using HotCat current
20:22, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Alex Tyus removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat
20:22, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Mark Turenshine removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:21, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Ryan Turell removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:21, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Irv Torgoff removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:20, 6 December 2023 diff hist −62 James Terry (basketball) removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat
20:19, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Sid Tanenbaum removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:18, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Amar'e Stoudemire removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:18, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Sam Singer (basketball) removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:18, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Willie Sims (basketball) removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:18, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Jerry Simon removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:17, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Lou Silver removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current Tag: Manual revert
20:17, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Al Seiden removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:17, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Barney Sedran removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:17, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Steve Schlachter removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:17, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Jon Scheyer removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:16, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Ossie Schectman removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:16, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Dolph Schayes removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:16, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Danny Schayes removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:16, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Danny Rubin (basketball) removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:15, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Ron Rothstein removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:15, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Irv Rothenberg removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:15, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Alvin Roth (basketball) removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:15, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Gene Rosenthal removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:15, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Hank Rosenstein removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:14, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Lennie Rosenbluth removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:14, 6 December 2023 diff hist −109 Clarke Rosenberg removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:14, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Zack Rosen removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:13, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Red Rosan removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:12, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Len Rader removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:12, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Howie Rader removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:12, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Aulcie Perry removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:11, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Bernard Opper removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:08, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Steve Nisenson removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:07, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Dave Newmark removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:07, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Jerry Nemer removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
20:07, 6 December 2023 diff hist −45 Boris Nachamkin removed Category:Jewish men's basketball players using HotCat current
I see an ongoing discussion about this. I don't see a closure. Are you referring to the discussion that was not closed, but which you were part of? And the assertions in that discussion have problems, as pointed out, insofar as they call for merge. For example, apart from common sense and aiding readers, the fact that there are so many similar cats by gender in basketball players. Even with fewer women. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A043:72FB:85CE:2E30 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Only nationalities are divided by genders, not ethnicities or religions; this is part of a bigger clean-up. As for my moves: I moved the categories for American players only while the rest are there awaiting the closure of discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
(ec -- was rewriting the above) I see an ongoing discussion about Jewish basketball players by gender. I don't see a closure. As to these, I only saw a deletion and not an add. And no explanatory edit summary - which is appropriate. Extra important when deleting. In the current discussion seeking to delete as a cat Jewish women basketball players and merge it, the assertions in that discussion have problems, as pointed out, insofar as they call for merge. For example, apart from common sense and aiding readers, the fact that there are so many similar cats by gender in basketball players. Even with fewer women.
The rationale - which is all important - is the same for Jewish basketball players (btw, Judaism is as our Supreme Court Justice Brandeis pointed out, a nation, as well as a religion) as it is for nationalities. We want to aid the reader. Whether they are looking for a woman from Nepal who is a basketball player or a woman who is Jewish who is a basketball player. And the argument made at that discussion of "common sense" is wrongheaded, for that reason (among others). And the argument that "let's get rid of the gender category because there are only 8 women in it is - similarly - unavailing. For the same reason. You're making a distinction without a logical difference. We're here to help readers. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A043:72FB:85CE:2E30 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make an argument against, do it in the discussion, not in my talk page. And Brandeis can say anything he wants: Jewishness and Judaism is an ethnic as well as a religious identity, not a national one. And it is not to do with "let's get rid of the gender category due to few players" but with WP:OC.
And do not undo work. I diffused only American players to a category of Jewish American basketball players as per a discussion I had about categorization a while ago. The rest are in the very categories awaiting closure of discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you are right that we should rename to People from the Soviet Union. I think calling people "Soviet" can have political implications. Especially since Soviet meant some other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Soviets were thd workwes council. Some may assume "Soviet" means people who support the cause of the Soviet government. What we are trying to categorize is people who were nationals of the Soviet Union. I know the Chemists from the Soviet Union, Engineers from the Soviet Union, Writers from the Soviet Union will be harder to write, but we do not want domeone saying "Alexader Solzinitzyn was an anti-Soviet writer do I will eemove him from Soviet writers." People go in their nationdlity category no matter how much thry detest their nation. So I think from the Soviet Union would be a better title. I really think with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were could argue a from form is better as well. However I think the Soviet Union case is the strongest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you see a warning notice, when attempting to create a category, in case it was previously deleted following a community discussion? I usually see such a notice with a pointer to the discussion left in comment by the deleting admin. I see that you recently created several categories that were previously deleted after conclusive CfDs, sometimes almost immediately after they concluded:
Note that pages (not just categories) created again after a deletion discussion, even with a slightly different name, are eligible to speedy deletion, under criterion WP:G4. They don't need a full discussion again.
You may very well understand how creating and discussing again and again the same pages and categories, in hope of a different result, is considered non-cooperative behaviour. The policy page WP:Gaming the system explains how this defeats the purpose of civil and cooperative editing that makes Wikipedia what it is. Place Clichy (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Place Clichy, I honestly did not know about the WP:G4 rule until you mentioned it yester. And I hope you understand I am NOT trying to game the system.
No worries, I have no reason not to assume good faith. I'd just like to invite you to pay attention to the banner and link to the previous deletion discussion when that happens, and ask yourself why the rationale would no longer apply before creating it again. This nearly always amounts to WP:EGRS/I in the case of Jewish people categories, so I would also amicably suggest you to ask yourself why a number of editors consider that some such categories are trivial while some others are legitimate, a point I'm not sure where you stand at the moment. Indeed I believe I have mostly seen you so far in the spirit of attempting to link the dots and cover the map, pardon me if that's not the case. It is a legitimate feeling, but it needs to take into account the triviality element, as expressed by consensus in past discussions (or absence thereof) and editing guidelines.
My approach to sportspeople is that I don't create categories unless there is precedence for it. As in if a sport has been divided by ethnicity then I will make a category for it. I thought it was okay to create the ice hockey category because Category:Black ice hockey players exist.
Quite frankly, as it is much easier to create a category than to delete one, there are just categories that stand there but to which many editors would object. That's why WP:Other stuff exists is a trap argument. Natural inertia and the fact that a number of discussions also end in "no consensus" (which is quite different that a consensus to keep a category) make that the pace at which categories are created is just higher than the pace at which bogus categories are deleted. That's why it is wrong to assume that because categories for some sports/ethnicity intersections exist, it is OK to create them for other intersections. Place Clichy (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood.
Personally, I don't see an issue with further categorizing in the case of Category:American sportspeople because the category would be too big otherwise. Unless you want to do away completely with Sportspeople by ethnicity and keep it simply to states and sports. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you want to explain the ambiguity of Soviet in your nomination. Both how there were smaller Soviets that then become the Soviet Union, and how Soviet is often used more as a synonym of Communist than as a nationslity identifier. Explain that alone it has broad policy related implications, and we are not trying to include any of those in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I am not sllowed to make arguments at CfD. I seem allowed to make general comments about category names, but direct participarltion in CfD is considered too close to deletion. I have to admit I think that we should use less demonyms period. However I think Soviet is too ambiguous to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
British North America
I am pretty sure pre-1867 we should only use "Canada" to refer to what was then called Canada. This is not currently the practice in articles. I found one article that said a person was born in Canada West, but they were really born in Rupert's Land. More often articles say the person was born in Canada in cases of births in New Brusnwick and Nova Scotia when they were not part of Canada. I think our categories currently place all places later in Canada under the heading of "pre-Confederstion Canada". I really think we need to scap this ahistorical naming. If the East Africsn Confederation happens, and they chose a name, will we then call things in current Tanzania and whatever else joins as "pre-X Confederstion Kenya" or what have you. So far I am only back to 1838, so I have not had to deal with too many issues. Except the fugitive slaves Category says "Canada", but what is really meant is British North America. Most went to either the Province of Canada or Upper Canada or Lower Canada before Feb 1841, but I do not think we mean to exclude the few who went to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Rupert's Land. Some would say "but what did Canada mean in common usage". That does not matter. In common usage in 1967 "Russia" meant "the Soviet Union" and "Russians" meant "people from the Soviet Union", but if you put an engineer from Kiev who lived 1925-1985 and never went to anywhere at the time considered Russia in a Russian Category people would rightly object. Common name should not be followed when it is just plain wrong. Calling someone in the Colony of New Brunswick "Canadian" is not quite that wrong. It is still more wrong than calling an ethnic Albanian person from Tirana who lived 1823-1901 "Turkish". That would be arguably what we would do if Wikipedia were created in 1902 and it was 1909.I have a pre-Balkan War World Atlas that has a map entitled "Turkey in Europe". However common name is tempted not just when it is wrong, but when it is confusing. Basically the only way to work categories is for Turkey to refer to the country created in 1923 and Turkish to refer to its nationals. People by ethnicity are called "Turks", and we use Ottoman Empire for the country that died at the end of 1922 and "from the Ottoman Empire" for its nationals. We do not call its nationals "Ottomans" which is worth bringing up in the Soviet discussion. The Ottomans were basically the ruling class of the Ottoman Empire. It would be similar if the Qing Emoire were called the "Manchu Empire" and we then tried to call all its residents "Manchus". I still think having "Qing Dynasty" categories which are meant to include all nationals of the Empire ruled by the Qing Dynasty is off, I think we should have "writers from the Qing Empire". Some would say "but the standard is to use X Dynasty as an adjective". Yes, but most often with artifacts, not people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem with "colonial Phillipines"
The problem with "Spanish people in the colonial Philippines" is that after Spanish rule the Philippines were under American colonial rule until about 1946. I think actually British people in colonial India is misnamed, since what we want is British people living in British India, not those in Portuguese, French or other European colilonial Indias. We also of course want to make sure people who were expatriates in the Mughal Empire are not included. I think the intent is to intepret "British India" as both British East India company and direct Imperial rule, and to include those in princely states, but to exclude any cases of British expatriates in areas that were not yet under directvor indirect rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
MERRY CHRISTMAS 2U
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello Omnis Scientia, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I was going to respond in the statue RM discussion but it was closed. Anyway, starting the RM discussion for Louisville is entirely up to you. But if you do it, I recommend coming prepared, unlike what happened in the previous attempt. Not only does there need to be strong reasons in favor (and I think there are), but also we're fighting a seemingly settled guideline where the AP choice is strictly followed. It's an uphill push. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk21:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Definitely seems like an uphill battle. But given that there are smaller cities in other countries without the state/province/county name with them, I don't see why this one shouldn't either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I very much agree. I think the rub here is that the special US guideline was seeking a clear boundary for what US cities could be shown without their state. I haven't reviewed how that guideline came about, but my (wiki-experiential) hunch is that when we had a lot more editors, there needed to be a way to keep article names for US cities in check, thus a guideline was written. And as the AP is a respected news source in the US, their boundary was selected. We would be arguing for an exception to a settled guideline. It might be easier to convince the AP to whittle down its byline for Louisville. :) Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk21:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I was checking the original debate (here) and it seems that it was a "let's get it over with" discussion rather than spending months debating each and every city in the U.S. But it seems there is little room for exceptions there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I just reviewed a lot of that, and there are useful points to both sides of that debate. And perhaps that is what we need at this point, a debate in RfC format rather than RM, as in an RM, we would have to deal with snow closers per the guideline. In an RfC, it could be an open debate where we have some time to get all the facts out and discussed. And admittedly, I can see why Louisville would be associated with Kentucky in a global sense (e.g. Kentucky Derby, which takes place in Louisville), so that colors the debate, despite Louisville in Kentucky clearly being by far the predominant 'Louisville'. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk22:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello Omnis Scientia, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Statue of Althea Gibson, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Althea Gibson.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi there. I noticed you had filed for the category for the Italians of Croatia to move to Italian diaspora in Croatia. Please note that we had to revert this, because it doesn't match the reality described at Italians of Croatia. The use of the relatively strange phrasing with "of" was intentional, and should have been a hint that this is not a perhaps more conventional immigrant/emigrant situation. Perhaps that was too subtle, but still, when the article is linked through a {{cat main}} or a {{cat more}} template, I would still advise always reading it before proposing changes. Also, the same would apply to a lot of the other ethnic groups in Croatia. --Joy (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
However, I see that at least some of the target categories were newly created by yourself, whereas the old category pages ended up being deleted. This means that Wikipedia loses the attribution of the original pages. We try to avoid this where possible. I think it would have been preferable to nominate the original set for purge and rename from tennis people to tennis players. That way, the page history would have been preserved, and I think it would have been less work for you too.
Also, using the bot to merge from a parent to a sub-cat puts the category into itself; in this case DMacks seems to have done the necessary cleanup afterwards. It would have made for better processing to nominate for merging upwards rather than downwards.
Hello @Fayenatic london! I should explain; this was actually one of my earlier attempts at categorization and Cfds so I did make quite a few mistakes and a lot of errors, including creating new categories for players and making a lot of unnecessary work for myself and others.
If I had a chance to do it again, I certainly would do it the way you have described (and subsequently did so with similar categories for German, English, and Australian players by country subdivision).
As it is, someone did finally explain to me a while ago that upmerge is an easier way to go about merging so I take care to set the right target categories now. I didn't know about the lost attribution though so thank you for telling me. I will also send appreciation to DMacks; didn't realize they had to do the heavy lifting.
Thanks for taking that well. Please can I also ask you to exercise an even greater measure of self-checking when using the Speedy CFD page, as there is less time for others to identify and correct any typos there? When there are a large number of listings, the admins (usually Ymblanter, Timrollpickering and I) may not have time to check them thoroughly before processing.
Oh my goodness, I'm so very sorry! I COMPLETELY missed that. I will definitely triple check next time I make large nominations like this. Thank you. I do hope this is the only such error. If not, please inform me and I will manually fix it myself. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Glad to help! I haven't played tennis since high-school gym class, but this was an interesting set that popped up on radar while I was looking at some graph theory ideas related to categorization. Feel free to ping me if you need further help with this sort of thing. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
CFD closures
Hello, Omnis Scientia,
Please do not remove the CFD tag from categories unless it is decided to Keep them. If they are to be deleted, then there needs to be a link in the deletion log to the CFD discussion where it was determined that they should be deleted (or merged). If you just remove the CFD tag and they are empty, then they will be deleted after a week as an empty category (CSD C1). Empty categories can always be restored at any time upon request while categories that are deleted through a CFD discussion shouldn't be restored. If you have questions about how to fix up a CSD tag for categories marked for deletion through CFDs, then I suggest asking Marco or Mason who do this frequenty after they have emptied or merged a category when a CFD is closed. I've found them to be very helpful. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!22:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it was no inconvenience, in fact, I only noticed it on one category about the 3 millennium. Categories operate very differently than, say, redirects or articles (templates are tricky, too) that's why we have a small group of smart editors who know how to handle CFD closures. It's so tricky that this is why sometimes CFD discussions can stay open for weeks or even months, because we don't have a big pool of administrators who are knowledgeable about closing CFD discussions especially if merging or emptying categories is part of the closure. That's why I want to encourage you to learn how to do this and then we'll have one more editor who can close CFD discussions! Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
So I've noticed that quite a few categories that you close end up tagged by @Liz: for empty speedy deletions, as opposed to just deleted. I'm not sure how the logistics of closing work, but this category history shows the typical order of operations. [6]. I think it might be helpful to leave the nomination up, until the category is processed. However, I'd love some wisdom from folks who do a lot of closings, like @HouseBlaster and Qwerfjkl:. To see if there's a better ordering. (Also the decisions are very solid/reasonable! So nice job on that.) Mason (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison, ha ha! No worries! At the time there was quite a backlog of Cfds left to be closed so I did so. But quite a few people have told me since its no big deal and not to hurry things along. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI, I found that rolling back the removal was the easiest way to facilitate the processing. So I'm really sorry about all the revert alerts you're getting. I tried to find another way, but none of the templates were behaving. Mason (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to Babe Ruth Birthplace and Museum has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I want to ask you to allow me to edit the article according to MOS and based on conventions that I am familiar with. It will be appearing on the main page as an approved DYK but I may have to withdraw because it is not stable when you make so many changes. You are undoing to your preferred version and I am trying to follow MOS. for instance MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says, It is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line. You have reverted it twice. And you have introduced grammatical errors by rewriting large portions of the article. You also prefer the article without attribution but that is not my preference. You have changed the name and scope of the article without discussion as well. So I want to appeal to you to allow me to restore MOS and allow the article to appear as it was approved. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean about DYK. Do know that whatever I did I did to try to make the article more easier to read because I felt there were a lot of repetative info in there. I'm sorry if you don't like the changes but I didn't remove any of the details, I merely cleaned it up a little bit.
As for the article name: I merely made it consistant with what I've seen in similar articles. But if you aren't happy with the name, you can request move it via WP:Requested moves. Also, this way you can get the feedback of others.
Personally, I would disagree with moving it back to "Funeral of Babe Ruth" because majority of articles about funerals have the title "Death and funeral of..." (or "Death and state funeral") unless there is already a seperate article on their death. I would also disagree that the move changed the scope of the article. It is still about his funeral, with basic details of his death mentioned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The scope was changed and many of your edits were helpful, I am familiar with MOS from my work in DYK and GA. MOS:LQ and MOS:BLOCKQUOTE were two that were not followed. Then there are preferences for image location and use of news outlets for attribution which are just preferences. I do not prefer to use waffling words like "around" so I attribute the quotes. There was also unnecessary peacocking in the lead which is not needed. Bruxton (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The article is approved in a much different version and title for the DYK section of the main page and one of the requirements for an article to appear is stability. Bruxton (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Recently, about a month ago, I added a hits allowed column to Don Drysdale's pitching stats line and you reverted it. Why? A perfectly legitimate statistic for a pitcher. Just wanted to know why you reverted the stat. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there!
So I just checked and I apparently did do that. If I'm being honest, I have NO idea why I did that because, of course, you're right. It is an important and informative statistic. I can't think about what I was actually trying to do when I did so. Sorry for removing it and thank you for bringing it to my attention! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadow311 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hi Omnis Scientia. Thank you for your work on Philip Hess. Another editor, Lightburst, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thanks for the article. I hope that you continue to develop it
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Samoht27 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
May possibly be notable, but not shown in the article. The phrase "is considered one of the..." is a violation of WP:WEASEL.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Orphaned non-free image File:Casey Award Spitball Magazine.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Casey Award Spitball Magazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Starmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
