User talk:Eagledj

Hello, Eagledj! I'm Ahecht. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I just contributed an article about a musician/ songwriter named Red Lane. Now I find a stub, about the same person, under "Red Lane/Musician" which is just a couple of lines taken out of Lane's obituary in the local newspaper. How do you handle a duplication like this and reconcile the 2 articles? Eagledj (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eagledj (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By merging the content and then redirecting one page (here the one with the parenthetical suffix) to the other.

You should take a look at the Music industry section. There some kind of redundancy going on there with the same sentence repeated twice, and what appears to be a sentence fragment in the middle of other text.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for the early life section? Only the last sentence is sourced and it appears to be the only section like that (though I must tell you some of the sources throughout appear questionable as to reliability or are 'mere mentions'. By the way, I would think that the early life section would be just after the lead; we normally place it there because it's natural when you're providing a bio to do so in rough chronological order.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I want to make a new section, I hit return twice, the use the ==new heading== markup. It works normally for a couple of sections. Then, repeating the same thing, it makes the heading, but puts the previous paragraph into a block quote. Why? How do I either get rid of the box or stop it from creating it in the first place.? the page is User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming. Thank youEagledj (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the block quote appearance is that you started the text of the paragraph with a space. The solution is to delete that space. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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 you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Collins (producer) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eagledj. I actually came here to tell you about what the bot says above: Your DYK nomination will never go anywhere because you haven't listed it at the review page so that anyone can ever look at and approve it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, My Tom Collins (Producer) article shows up on the review page Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_24. Correct? Is there more I need to do? Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, my mistake. I had looked at the nomination when I tweaked it, and saw that then you had not completed the last step, but when I posted the message above, you had already fixed it. Sorry if I caused confusion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fughettaboutit, I have found a poorly written article about a notable subject who deserves a decent Wiki article. I am cleaning it up and adding references, but I suspect copyvio, where copies of the Wiki article appear elsewhere. The article is Steve Buckingham (producer). My question is about what is going on with "Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press, "http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/steve_buckingham_(record_producer). I also found it at "Blair School of music", http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham. Is he handing out copies of his Wiki article as as a resume or vice versa ? Thanks for your help as always, Eagledj (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eagledj The World Heritage Encyclopedia is largely a Wikipedia Mirror., i.e., what you find there generally is taken from here. It does look like the article is a copyright violation and plagiarism of http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham not because I found a pre-dating version in the Internet Archive a/k/a the Wayback Machine, which only goes back to 2012 for this page but because of other hallmarks. And a bit deeper, it looks like the real source is this. Almost the entire article needs to go. If it wasn't for your interest I would delete it entirely. It you want to pursue this then the best option is to do a complete rewrite (brutally pare it down and rewrite anything pre-existing), tell me when your done with the initial phase of tearing it down, and I will hide all revisions in the history up to your last edit. Then start building it up again. Or, of course, tell me that you have saved your recent additions offline, and maybe some of the skeleton, e.g., categories, and I will just delete and you can start from scratch. Probably even better but I'm open to whatever you think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fughettaboutit, I have brutally pared the Buckingham article, ready for re-write without copyvio. Offline, I have saved my own edits and references. I am ready to tackle the task from scratch, which as you said may be easier than fighting through the muck. Thanks Eagledj (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: Done! Edit away!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have rewritten the Steve Buckingham article. I'm discouraged to find that, even before it's finished, it's already been stolen HERE. Please go through it and do what you can to help it. Does it need some subheadings or paragraph breaks? Please copy to my talk page. Best regards and thanks, Eagledj (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Buckingham (record producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shine (song). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas F. Frist, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halfback. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Collins (Producer) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tom Collins (producer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Collins (producer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 12:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bobby Ogdin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eagledj. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Bobby Ogdin".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have a new article, my fifth. If you have time, please look it over look over it before I move it to mainspace. User:Eagledj/sandbox/Phila Hach I know not to use access dates for paper sources, but the paper is not really paper– it is online. I also have some doubts about my pronunciation using the IPA (I have tried my best)- - - also questioning whether to italicize names of self-published cookbooks. As always, I appreciate your opinion greatly. Thanks for helping me in the “Did You Know. . . “ with my article Tom Collins(producer). Best regards— eagledj Eagledj (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eagledj! I'll take a look soon. You will have to turn elsewhere for your IPA to be checked though. I am hopeless at it. I would ask for help with that at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fuhghettaboutit- Thanks for the edits, as always. I have moved the article to mainspace. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit- A tag has been placed on the Phila Hach article. The article may sound like a personal reflection, but I never met Hach or any of her family and I have ample sources for the statements I made. Nevertheless, I have subsequently made several edits to correct incidences of puffy or non-neutral language that had sneaked in. The "opinion essay" criticism may be for the "anecdote" section, but these are labeled as ANECDOTES. If you will, please weigh in and remove this tag unless you have further thoughts. Your edits were spot-on and really helped the article. Later, Eagledj (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Phila Hach.

This article was flagged with {{essay-like}} by Slashme. Having seen many essays masquerading as articles, I don't think that was a truly close fit for that tag, but, nevertheless, I do think the article was improved because of the tagging. That is, the chief contributor, Eagledj made a series of edits to make the article's language more neutral – which it did need (I think {{peacock}} would have been closer to the mark originally). Anyway, I've made a few more in that vein. Accordingly, the issue having been addressed, I propose to remove this tag after a short period of time, say 48 hours, unless anyone comes forward with a specific reason not to – in which case the issue can be discussed further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the article. I was just wondering: is it really "File-ah Hah" (is there possibly a source?). Silent cs like that seem really unusual. I popped her name into YouTube to see if I could hear someone in the know pronouncing it and came upon an interview with her (apparently from Southern Foodways Alliance [which I won't link since it looks like a copyright violation, since not uploaded by them]) but she never said the name. Hmm. Maybe I should just say "nevermind"—I just realized, you wrote in the article that "Hachland" is pronounced like "Holland", which is absolutely consistent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: Dear Fuhghettaboutit, Yes, of course I'm sure about the pronunciation. Everybody knows her around Nashville. My problem was "Hachland". While writing the article, I knew I had read somewhere that "Hachland" was pronounced "Holland", but I couldn't find the source again, so I picked up the phone and called the venue, and they answered, "Holland Hill". I was satisfied. I never would have written that unless I was sure of it. My best Eagledj (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I make an edit, and save it but forgot to write in the "edit summary", is there any way to go back to write the edit summary ? How to handle this?

How do I put in the edit summary which section of the article I'm editing, e.g., "Early Life"? I know there is some wiki markup somewhere.

Thanks Eagledj (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second is the easy question. Usually the section that you are editing is inserted automatically for you between slashes, and you just have to add a general comment in addition to the location. As to the first question, you can't modify an edit summary, but what you can do if you forget to put in an edit summary is to do a dummy edit and include an edit summary for the previous edit. (The fact that an edit summary can't be modified after the fact, by the way, is one of the reasons why uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks in edit summaries are even worse than incivility and personal attacks on talk pages. Edit summaries, in extreme cases, can be redacted by an administrator, which is occasionally done if the edit summary was purely disruptive or grossly degrading. However, you weren't asking about insulting edit summaries, but about forgetting the edit summary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find answers to both questions at Help:Edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is scant evidence for him having won four Grammy awards the reference given says that he received a Grammy for co-producing a gospel album by the Winans, but there doesn't appear to be any sources for the other three? Can anybody find some sources? Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theroadislong, Three sources are inserted at the end of the Steve Buckingham article's first sentence to document the Grammy awards. The current problem I'm having is unregistered users who are repeatedly adding blatant WP:COPYVIO from the subject's own website Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safehaven86,

Please take a look at an article I wrote on Steve Buckingham. MegNordmann edited the article on August 23, 2016 and inserted a lot of information in the lead. Unfortunately, this info is copyvio which appears verbatim on the subject's own website HERE. I'd like to delete the copyvio and restore the article to where it was on August 2nd, but I am a relative newbie and have never done this, especially with some edits being done after this by you. Also, Chrisallen1948 added a line that is unsubstantiated – look at that too. I'd appreciate your weighing in on this. By the way, the original article on this subject contained the same copyvio – please read discussion by Fuhghettaboutit.

Regards, Eagledj (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention! You are right, the edits made to this article during August include blatant WP:COPYVIO issues. I've restored the article to the version from August 3, prior to the copyright violations being added. Do you think anything else needs to be done, or does it look ok to you now? Safehaven86 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Safehaven86, The article looks fine. Maybe next time I'll have the courage to fix such things myself. You have helped greatly. Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in here and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Wikipedia, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?

Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I need your help on an article I wrote on Steve Buckingham. Thank you for undoing a recent edit by Marc26ru. He is back editing again applying unsourced info from the subject's own web site, which is copyvio as seen here. This issue has been noted and corrected previously by Safehaven86. Apparently, Marc26ru is a personal friend of the subject who "requests" these changes which include an exhaustive listing of almost everything he's done. I would like to restore the article to your edit. He could add a list of artists Buckingham has worked with as a list at the end of the article but nobody wants to read all that in the lead. I'd appreciate your help. Regards, Eagledj (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Safehaven86, Please take another look at my Steve Buckingham article. More unsourced copyvio. How to stop it? Thanks again Eagledj (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have done a near total rewrite of a stub article I found, Diane Schuur. When I started, it had a BLP tag dated June 2013 and only 4 citations. I have added a great deal to it both in research and citations and have removed the template. I would appreciate your taking a look at it to see what you think it needs. I have a couple of questions, since you have been my best Wiki teacher in the last coupe of years. QUESTION 1 — the personal life section of the article has some rather sensitive information — well-documented, but possibly embarrassing to the subject. The words came directly from her mouth if one takes the time to watch the interview. QUESTION 2: In the lead, citations 3 and 4 refer to Youtube videos of performances of the Schuur, first at "Kennedy Center Honors" for Stevie Wonder, and the second with Ray Charles. Is Youtube appropriate as a reference? The videos are certainly compelling and do support the statements made, but I do not know how to tell if there is copyright violation. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagledj. For some reason you asked the above at an archive of my talk page, rather than at my talk page (because of that I might have never noticed since I don't get any ping when an archive is edited; I just happened to notice it (just now, two days after you posted it) but only from my watchlist).

I'll respond at my talk page, but please revert your edit to the archive and move your comment to my actual talk page!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj:. I have just finished my copyedit. As usual, a wonderful job. There are a few hidden notes for you to look at. Other than that, I think it's ready for a good article nomination. I was surprised to see that none of the articles you've worked on have been taken there by you, since at least all the ones we've worked on in the past (and this one) seem worthy. Any reason you haven't? Would you want me to do the honors? As to the matters above, I think the sensitive information belongs. It's verified, certainly important to a complete biography, and not dwelled upon by you in your write-up with undue weight. I checked all the YouTube sources. Everything seems okay. The main thing to look for with videos like this is whether the source of publication likely has rights to the material they publish. So, random person posting a video of a BBC new story is a copyvio; BBC posting a video of a BBC new story is A-Okay. HoustonPBS is surely okay. As to the ones posted by Schuur, I suppose it's possible that she didn't have the right to tape or post, but we can't hamstring ourselves over unbounded copyright paranoia. Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, Your edits are spot on, and always helpful. They make me wonder why I didn't see that, or think of such and such. A good collaborator really helps. You obviously spent some time working on it to verify the sources and make the words succinct and logical. I have found the three hidden notes you inserted and addressed them. I've also add a few things just now which may be clumsily worded. Please take a look. Yes, I would like for you to do the honors for good article status if you will. Regards, Eagledj (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I think it reads quite well now. The only thing I think might hold it back from a good article nomination is the lead. You know the lead should be a canonical summary of the article's content. In relatively compact articles I think they read well with leads like this one has, but, nevertheless, it's not truly an overarching summary, and contains content not in the body of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eagledj. Unlike the other three videos, the two white house videos you cited and linked are almost certainly copyright violations and the citations need to be recast--the details of Youtube as a source there and the links removed. You can cite the actual source, which is news broadcasts, aired on PBS, the dates of airing and so forth. To put it another way, what is the likelihood that the person who named their Youtube channel "TheMotiondevotion", is really PBS (which almost certainly owns the copyright here) or that PBS licensed this seemingly random Youtube channel to post their copyrighted material? It's possible, but here we must assume it's a copyvio without affirmative evidence to the contrary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Agreed. The sketchy Youtube sources are deleted; however, I did write "TheMotionDevotion" an email just to see if they answer. As you've seen, I'm doing some rewrites, and I hope to really have something worthy soon. Cheers, Eagledj (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, shaping up quite nicely. I'm looking at the expansion now. Is there a citation for the Kennedy Center Honors facts about the exact key matching? It's currently unsourced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the sentence a little bit above "Her career was now becoming a success and she was gaining wide acceptance in the U.S. and abroad" I want to zap out. Do you know the writer's mantra (so important for writing here) "show, don't tell"? Besides also being unsourced, it seems to me this sentence is very much empty "telling"; you're showing her mounting success by the facts; no need to explain it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I completely agree about the "show, don't tell" advice— lesson learned. The perfect pitch sentence is an unsourced opinion and original research and does not belong. Nevermind--it's gone. I've done a lot of re-writing since we last talked — I think the lead is now cannonical with the only exception being the Helen Keller Award. Do you want me to restate or amplify that in the body of the article? Regards, Eagledj (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite good now. Well done. I have no qualms about nominating it for a good article (which I will do soon—and where it will probably take three months before it's looked at, last I checked it was that far behind), and though it would take some more work to round it out, there's a strong foundation here for considering taking it to the next level (FAC).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The <ref name="colony"> website is dead. I did find a capture at the Wayback Machine, but it just comes up as a blank page for me, here. Is there a different cite you can use for the same material?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. replaced with a different reference. Another question : This quote: Discussing Getz in this role, Schuur stated, "he really was a mentor of mine. He taught me that less is more."[26] The word "He" should be capitalized but it is not. The actual quote does not begin with "HE"; it is taken from mid-sentence of the speaker. So do I capitalize the He, or do I create an ellipsis . . . he really was a mentor, etc.? You can see her original words HERE. Eagledj (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem, because I don't think he should be capitalized, and since it's not in the original, there's no change needed. As I see it, the problem would come in if the opposite was true. If "He" was capitalized in the original, then you would need to write "[h]e" to show you were decapitalizing from source. Here, since the quote starts in the middle of your sentence, the "h" is properly not capitalized, and since it's also not capitalized in the original, everything's hunky-dory. Anyway, as I read MOS:PMC by analogy, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity, I wouldn't worry about a non-substantive change, if there even was one here.

On another issue, since I don't have access to The Arizona Daily Star, can you confirm a possible correction – where I'm not sure if I'm correct about the error. The cite provides for the article's title: "Schuur Homecoming is Toe-Tapping', Jammin'". The second apostrophe indicates the omission of the "g". I think, then, that the apostrophe at the end of "Toe-Tapping'" is also supposed to indicate the omission of the "g" but yet, it follows an actual g. Am I right that it should be tappin'?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp eyes. You are correct. It is "toe-tappin' as well as "jammin' with the "g"s omitted. The original headline is also in lower case. I've corrected it. The song she started in the wrong key was "Makin' Whoopee, by the way. --Eagledj (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Fughettaboutit, I have written a new article about a fellow named Bill Elliott. The guy has won a Tony Award and I couldn't believe he did not have a Wiki page. The article is in my sandbox HERE. Would you look it over do some copyedit ? If you think it is worthy, go ahead and move it to mainspace. There is another article with the identical name, so I guess we call this one "Bill Elliott (musician)"? In the article, I wanted to do an explanatory note, but I did not know how to do it. You'll find it in the middle of the section "Early years". Also I need to find the subject's middle name. I am going to be out of the country for 8 days, so I may be slow in responding, but I should have Internet. Best regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! looking for his middle name I know how you got onto him; he recorded Diane Schuur’s Midnight. Will do a copyedit soon:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit ---The Bill Elliott article is up and running. Thanks for your copyedit. Now, I have run across an article entitled Lorenzo de Zavala which contains blatant plagiarism taken from HERE. I began deleting the copyvio, only to realize that it's virtually the entire article. The whole thing may need to go. Please take a look.--your friend, --Eagledj (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an article entitled Bill Elliott (musician), but the article appears to be transparent on any Google search, even using the exact words. After I was finished with it in my sandbox, I blanked the namespace article by mistake, (instead of my sandbox version) but undid it. The article shows up OK within Wiki, but not outside Wiki. The same is true for Google searching for a keyword within the article. Can you help? Thanks--Eagledj (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. A decision was taken some months ago that new pages would be NOINDEXed until they have been accepted by the New pages patrol process. This came as a surprise to many editors. There is an increasing queue (currently 15618 pages) awaiting patrol, and a backlog of more than 3 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Russell Brothers, Eagledj! Wikipedia editor Chris troutman just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This looks like a well-done article. You don't need to but I like to see an infobox and some images. With work, you might be able to nominate this for "good article" status.

To reply, leave a comment on Chris troutman's talk page. Learn more about page curation. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris, Thanks for reviewing my article on Russell Brothers and for fixing that copyvio that slipped in. I read about you, and I am impressed with all you've done for Wikipedia. How I wish I could have taken one of your courses from the get-go, rather than learn Wiki by trial and error. My best regards, --Eagledj (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for making some excellent additions to the article. I do wonder why you removed the citation in the infobox for his birthplace? Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sundayclose (talk) I was going by WP:INFOBOXREF but I have no strong feelings on the matter. Put it back if you wish. The article is a work in progress and has miles to go. I appreciate your taking a look. Regards, --Eagledj (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Don't feel obligated but I have a music GAN (M2M (band)) if you're interested. Rather than bring them up here, I will just fix any minor issues I see myself. If you're unhappy with any of my changes, just revert them and we'll discuss here instead. I'm happy for you to work on any issues I bring up as I bring them up; don't feel the need to wait until I finish the entire review. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Eagledj: Just pinging you both here so you know this review has been started. Freikorp (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on Freikorp. Eagledj: Please ping me or let me know on my talk page when you've finished addressing Freikorp's notes at the review, and then I'll give it a look-see (or if there's anything Freikorp commented on that you want me to try to address rather than you, feel free to tell me). Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pass or Fail: I'm placing this one on hold until the above issues are addressed. As per the above comments, I think both the 'Career' and 'Personal life' sections could also be structured much better. But they will no doubt be improved when the above issues are addressed, at which point I'll take another look at them. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Freikorp: Thanks for the suggestions. I've addressed most of them, still working on removing citations from the lead (All of them?) — at least it's a starting point. --Eagledj (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. I've put strikes through the issues I consider to be resolved. You only need to put citations in the lead if the information there is particularly controversial or libelous, or if there is a direct quote, so in this case you don't need any there. Of course, all information in the lead must be supported by citations in the body. Freikorp (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:@Freikorp: Ok, the lead is free of citations. I believe I've accounted for everything mentioned there, with the exception of three names out of a list of seven: Maynard Ferguson, Vince Gill, Allison Krause. What do I do there? Otherwise, things are now addressed and cited in the body of the article. The "Career" section is so fact-laden it doesn't read as well I'd like, but I'll keep refining it. I've tried to do a detailed edit summary so you can easily see my tracks. Cheers--Eagledj (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm not 100% what you're asking about those three artists. Are you saying you can't find sources for them in the body? In that case they should be removed.

I'm glad you're aware that the career section doesn't read as well as it should. Do you want some more time to keep working on it? This article is capable of being GA, but I'm not comfortable passing it with that section as it is right now. Don't be afraid to trim some of what's there in order to make the overall section better. The immediate thing that stands out from an overview is how short a lot of the paragraphs are. Try and make them at least the size of the paragraphs in the above three sections.

Also you've added some information on her sister. You indicated you didn't know her sister's name in the edit summary, but do you know of the sister is older or younger, or if Schuur has any other siblings? If so please add this to the 'Early life' section. If you can't find this information, don't worry about it. Freikorp (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Freikorp, All things mentioned in the lead are now covered in the body, including Ferguson, Gill, and Krause. Frank Sinatra added in lead and body as well. There is a sister who is older, but I find nothing about her that is notable, but at least she included in the "early life" section now, and I found where she did accompany Schuur flying to an audition in Burbank, which is briefly mentioned. The short paragraphs have been addressed. I think the compelling part of the story for the reader is in Schuur's early years and her discovery — that is a great story. By the "career section" the story levels off, but rises again in the "personal life". I have continued to condense "career". I believe it is some better with the Sinatra anecdote and I am still working on it. Best regards--Eagledj (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a copyedit pass this weekend.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the major improvements I'm happy for this to pass now, but by all means continue making copyedits and minor fixes; you're doing a good job. Well done on the article. Freikorp (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I'm working on an existing article, a biography of Earl Scruggs, which I have completely rewritten. I have branched out into adding sound and images which is new to me. I took a lesson from your user page where you listed uploaded movie posters, and basically used that as a guide for "fair use" of a record album cover. I also use a sound file which needs your scrutiny— of course I'd appreciate your copyedits too if you have time. Cheers----Eagledj (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: I am well familiar with Earl Scruggs. It's always ambitious to take on a project where the person is very famous, because there's the problem of an embarrassment of riches; so many sources; so much editorial judgment of what to include. Regarding the sound file, this is not something I am familiar with. Interesting that there's the debate over whether it's public domain where it apparently is viewed as such everywhere but in New York. Anyway, if you want a second opinion on your upload, you might try Commons:Village pump/Copyright. However, the use of {{PD-old}} appears incorrect on its face. It's for works in the public domain in the "country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less". Add 70 to Earl Scruggs' life = 2082. I'll take a go at a copyedit but not right away (I've got a lot of tongs in a lot of fires right now).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eagledj. I "finished" the article I've been working on for months last night (glossary of bird terms—the most ambitious writing project I've ever taken on here), and so will have some more time now and can start a copyedit fairly soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, The bird glossary is an unbelievable opus— looks like another featured article for you. Congratulations.--Eagledj (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will be taking it to FAC and I hope so. I think it might present unique challenges to assess there, because of length and because it's so specialized a subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:01 Track 01 1.ogg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I of course was using global search and replace for the date fixes, and after I did a bunch successfully, I didn't see that typo had crept into the replace field.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. No problem. Thanks for the edits. The "access date" button on the citation template defaults to "9 April 2017" but I want the format to be "April 9, 2017". Is there a way to change the default format? It's a pain to have to change it every time and often I forget to do it. Also, I have sound files to demonstrate the Martha White jingle and/or the Scruggs-Keith tuners. Do you think adding one or both would be overkill, i.e. too much audio sampling in the article? --Eagledj (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I took a look at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 (which I think is the tool you used) but don't see any way. I might drop a note about this somewhere (among other suggested tweaks to its output). I don't think it would be overkill but it might be a copyright problem. The jingle would be more relevant and interesting but I'm not so sure this would be valid under fair use, with "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" already sampled (because of WP:NFCC#3). However, wouldn't the tuner be you recording yourself just using one? If so, I think there is no copyright issue. The tuner sounds are not artistic expression subject to copyright protection AFAICT, and you recording yourself tuning using one would be owned by you and able to be released by you at the Commons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to help a little, adding a ref. The article has miles to go to meet standards. It is unfocused at present, just a lot of facts put together. Break it down into logical sections, such as beginnings, development, success, honors/awards. Avoid puffery. Make it sound encyclopedic in tone, leave out "multi award winning" and such. You don't have to build him up. Dig deeper— How did he acquire "Delbert's Boy Music"? Search books and newspapers, not just "Google". It takes hours of work, so make sure you have the commitment. Look at my articles about record producers HERE and HERE. I think it would be better to work on the original page. Good Luck--Eagledj (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj:Thank you! I really appreciate your help.

ClericalEditor (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi ClericalEditor. I don't want to hijack your article. From what little I've done, you can see the direction we're going, so jump in and have a go. Just ask if you get stuck, using my talk page HERE. Happy researching!--Eagledj (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clericaleditor, I have just worked on the Mark Bright article. I need your help on a couple of items: I need to know where Bright was born. His family did not move to Longview, TX until he was 5 years old. Can you verify his place of birth? Secondly, can you find a photograph of Mark Bright that is not copyrighted? Anything we find on the internet WILL be copyrighted and can't be used. Take a look HERE and HERE. Best regards--Eagledj (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Materialscientist I am the author of George C. Cory Jr. and I find someone from IP address User talk:1.43.12.178 has added an unsourced birth date at he first of the article. The death date is correct, but I have no source to verify the birth date, although the year is correct. You have apparently dealt with this IP address before for the a similar type thing on article Candy Raymond Can you take a lookl? Thanks--Eagledj (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I hope I haven't made a mistake here —take a look at Mark Bright (record producer). The existing article was a mess, as it's history shows: suspected vandalism, paid editing WP:COI. Rightly or wrongly, I felt the need to paste a copy of the body of the article into my sandbox to work on. I edited the sandbox copy (under a different title), got carried away, and more or less finished rewriting it HERE, not realizing that both source and target now have their own histories. The copy and paste was May 11, 2017, and it appears that no edits on the source or target page between then and now have been made by anyone but me. Since both articles have the same origin, can you replace the target article with my sandbox article preserving the histories? I did delete the categories in the the sandbox version, so I want to preserve the existing categories that are on the target page. I have some other questions about the article, but first I want to get it out of the sandbox. Thanks for helping, as always--Eagledj (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: No problem! I'll do a history merge later today. However, just be aware that when I do this, I will graft the page history of your draft into the existing article, and will delete your other edits—those you made directly to the article in between during the same time period. Otherwise, this would result in a strange shuffling of parallel edits, and a garbled history. Okay?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: History merge completed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: You're the greatest--many thanks--Eagledj (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User talk:107.77.205.34 I have reverted your edit to the Earl Scruggs article HERE. Scruggs was born in Flint Hill community, no longer on the map, but one mile from Boiling Springs, NC. which closer and more accurate than saying "near Shelby". Anonymous and unsourced edits are a violation of Wikipedia rules and can result in your being blocked from editing.--Eagledj (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request for an assessment [1] I have reviewed and re-assessed the article as B-class which is the highest classification the WikiProject can provide. I recommend you seek a higher class at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. maclean (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eagledj - thank you for your suggestions and encouragement. I will pass those suggestions along to the Zoological Society of Washington (ZSW) board. But they are fairly decided on what they would like to see in the Cougar Mountain Zoo article. I know for sure they they explicitly do not want to mention how many animals, species or attendance since we can't even begin to compare to the Bronx Zoo, etc. From what I can tell, only the really large zoos include those numbers in their Wikipedia articles. The ZSW board did revise it extensively (that revision in it's entirety is in my sandbox, wasn't sure if you looked at that or not) after my first naive attempt to revise it on the page itself, not understanding pretty much everything about how Wikipedia works :) Thank you also for your edits on the current article, new sources, etc. There is one pre-existing incorrect fact (our size is 11 acres, not 8), one typo you introduced (heard instead herd for the reindeer) and a mis-interpretation (the bronze statues are not part of the Wildlife Museum, they are separate). I guess I will try to fix them and see what happens.... Found the accreditation page for ZAA; added that to the "current" article and the one in my sandbox! FYI - The biggest source of newspaper articles on the Zoo, The Issaquah Press, closed it's doors earlier this year. And they removed all of their articles from the internet. Had to remove all of those links from the Zoo's News & Events page. Had other articles listed on that page but they were getting quite dated so we removed them all. Will see it there are any useful links to articles in my saved copies of older versions of that page of the website :) Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misty, one more time, you miss a fundamental concept of Wikipedia. Boards do not approve articles on Wikipedia, nor do they direct what goes into them or control them. Facts in secondary, reliable sources are what we rely on, whether the board approves or not, assuming the statements are not libelous and are properly sourced. That is the COI part of this that you have been told by Fuhghettaboutit, but you persist this wrong thinking seen in your above post. We are not working with you and your boss doing a sales job for the Zoo. You cannot write articles about yourself. That's what we mean by "secondary" sources—unbiased, disinterested, objective references. That is why this isn't working. A quote from the COI page: "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead." From here forward, let's adhere to that, with the exception of typos and any errors of fact.

Once again, from the conflict of interest COI page:

• Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
• The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell.
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.

Ignoring these principles can result in your being banned from editing. Now I have taken a large part of your sandbox, put it in the article, then edited it down, discarding the repetitious, unnecessary, and promotional parts. I think the article is taking shape HERE. Best regards--Eagledj (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to fix typos, and not add unsubstantiated information. And unfortunately I obviously still don't know how to do things correctly and made some mistakes. If I see something that is incorrect, should I let you know here or on the talk page of Cougar Mountain Zoo? Also, there are many links (both to Wikipedia articles, else where and to the Zoo's website) that I had in my sandbox version. A lot of those are not in your version. For example, I linked the word "endangered" to that Wikipedia article. Am I allowed to add links like that on the user page or do I suggest them on the talk page? Can I move the reference to the Living Classroom program to after it in quotes? That program services any child or youth program; not just schools which you imply. It's small subtleties like this that I see and understand which you may not. Make sense? And also just so you know my background is in embedded software verification and validation. That and many of the things I do for the Zoo as the Assistant Administrator mean that I focus on small very specific details. I do appreciate your insight and help. And I am very sorry that I do continue to things incorrectly. Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay for me to add the following 3 things to the infobox? And if so, how do I do that; user page or talk?

|date_opened=1972

|exhibits= World of Tigers, World of Macaws, World of Lemurs, World of Reindeer, World of Wolves, World of Cougars, Magic Forest, World of Ratites, ::World of Marsupials

|website=www.cougarmountainzoo.org

The website was in there and has since disappeared. The date_opened and exhibits are in other zoo info boxes. That's why I had that in my sandbox.

Also we realized the date the zoo was donated to ZSW was incorrect; should be 1990 and not 1987. I fixed this yesterday on the zoo's website. Also Peter Rittler was not and is not the development director. He is president of ZSW. That was incorrectly published by that newspaper. You will find many incorrect "facts" in newspaper articles. Just about every time an article was done on the Zoo by the now defunct Issaquah Press, they got something wrong :) This is knowledge that I have from my work here and is another reason why we hoping the "facts" could come from us. I am continuing to look for sources outside the Zoo's website. I have several that I haven't been able to figure out how to input into the sandbox version. I can try to figure out to pass them along to you if you want to take a look at them. Signing off for the weekend. Hope you have a great one!

Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misty, Do not make any more edits of any kind to the article or the infobox because they will be reverted.

For you to tell me that, for example, a date is wrong or Rittler's job description is wrong in a newspaper article, we cannot just go change that information because that would be called "original research". If we change what source says, then we cannot quote that source, can we? Strange, isn't it? Things have to be verifiable by a secondary source. If the newspaper is wrong, then it's on them. That said, I hate errors, so I can reword the article to hedge by saying different words, in order to to reconcile the Rittler inconsistency. I can fix the incorrect date only because you changed the source..We needn't name all the exhibits in the inbox or in the article. I have added a bullet list of some of the other exhibits. Do not ask me to include The magic forest, etc. This is not a recreation of your zoo's website. We are not going to mention everything. I am an editor, and that is what editors do.

Just so you'll know for other articles you might edit: A "link" can mean a wikilink (hyperlink) where the word turns blue; an "external link" takes the reader to a non-Wiki website. Do not over-link words like "exhibit" or "endangered" that are common knowledge.(WP:MOSLINK) External links are not normally used in the body of an article (WP:EXT). When you respond on a talk page, use a colon to offset your text from the previous person's text. To offset more, use 2 colons.

Anyone who has, himself, been the subject of a Wiki article sees imperfections he would like to change, but he is not allowed to. Also strange? The point is, the final article will never make you happy because you are biased. That is common in paid editors—so please accept it gracefully. Think of the article as a portrait that captures the big picture, rather than a photograph with faultless perfection. Don't expect the article to change very much from its present state. That said, I have tried to reconcile the points you have made. I say these things in kindness and good will. Do not respond to this with a long letter. I have to move on to other projects; however, if you make a concise bullet point list on the article's talk page and I will consider your future requests. Good luck,--Eagledj (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Misty's original edits to the article were not just fixing typos and not adding unreferenced information as claimed above. Edit summaries of "Major revision; was very outdated and needed a lot more content." and adding thousands of bytes to the article go against this claim. I reverted the original edits because it took an encyclopedic article that if changes were needed could have been to an unencyclopedic article with unreferenced material and original research. Eagledj, I think your recent edits have improved the article to keep it up to date without adding original research. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Procedural decline; this request was copied over to Talk:Cougar Mountain Zoo.

1. Please add the following as the last line of the infobox: website= 2. In the first sentence of the lead paragraph please change "southeast of Seattle" to "east of "Seattle". Here is one reference directly supporting that;

That is also what is stated in this reference;

I have a copy of that book and can provide a picture of p. 75 as proof if that would help. Just let me know that is needed and I will submit the request to have it uploaded.

3. Reverse the order of the last two sentences under the heading "Exhibits". Then everything under that heading will be in chronological order.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these changes and your time. Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove leading "the" from the first three bullet points.

Please add the following new reference at the end of bullet point one; Magnani Nature Gallery About Us

Please add the following existing reference to the end of bullet points two and three; It's the same reference as for bullet point four, Cougar Mountain Zoo Unique Features reference number 6.

Please revise bullet point three to read; Wildlife Museum, wildlife and paraphernalia donated for use in educational programs.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and your time. Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misty,

I asked you to provide a list in bullet form. Do that by typing an asterisk(*). It helps us address each point. I have already incorporated some of your requests into the article. If a request is not included, consider it denied. Also, do not add refs to a talk page. They need to be removed, and referred to in the body not in Wiki markup form.

• A list of items typical in a zoo infobox is found HERE. Read it please. Please tell me the number of animals, number of annual visitors, and number of species. I'll consider adding some more. I did add the website.

• For these things you want to add to the infobox, you have said, and I quote: "I know for sure they (the board of directors) explicitly do not want to mention how many animals, species or attendance since we can't even begin to compare to the Bronx Zoo, etc." This is proof that you are selective in your facts because the truth might not make your zoo look good. This is called "whitewashing" and is against the rules under WP:COI. Be honest, how many animals? The zoo started with 53?

• As far as listing "exhibits" in the infobox, that refers to the number of exhibits, and I will allow that, so what is the number?

• "East vs southeast of Seattle": When I wrote southeast I looked at Google maps to verify it and I check the mileage. I stand by it. It IS southeast; however, since you are a local, I gave deference and changed it to simply "east".

• For what reason, exactly, do you want the word "the" removed? Just curious.

• The "refs" you want to add after the bullet points are not true refs— they are to your OWN website, not secondary sources. You don't have to keep citing these basic facts. Some people might believe it adds gravitas to the article by showing a long, impressive-looking reflist at the bottom, but it does not. Request denied.

• For the Wildlife Museum bullet point: is actual wildlife donated? pictures of wildlife? taxidermy specimens? animal skins? skeletons? size of the museum? What, exactly, does "paraphernalia" mean in this context? Please elaborate, even though the info is a personal communication, not verifiable, and therefore probably not useable unless you change the zoo website. "Misty told me" won't do, but just curious.

I hope you answer to all the above is concise and reasoned, because your window is rapidly closing on this article. Best,--Eagledj (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eagledj, First thank you for incorporating what you did. I really appreciate it. And I'm sorry that I did not have it in the correct format. I learn best by visually seeing and example so the fact that you wanted bullet points with an "*" didn't register in my brain.

• Most small and mid-size zoos that I have seen articles for on Wikipedia do not list how many animals, species or attendance. But then even Bronx Zoo and San Diego Zoo don't list their attendance. It's only the really large zoo that do that because they have such impressive numbers. If you like I can try to come up with examples. I don't remember those zoo off the top of my head as that was weeks ago.

• Hmm, everyone else seems to be listing the names of their major exhibits and not a number of exhibits. See infoboxes Bronx Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo (local), San Diego Zoo.

• East versus southeast, yes subjective. But I thought it needed to match was was stated on the zoo's website and in the book by Barbara Sleeper since they were the references cited.

• removing "the", thought it would read cleaner and make it less repetitive.

• "refs" - I though everything had to be referenced. So my apologies once again for my lack of understanding. Yes, Magnani is mentioned on the Zoo's website. But the link I suggested to Magnani is not to the Zoo's website. Magnani has it's own separate website and it's About Us page is the only place that I see that has the information you put into this article like the date established. But maybe it doesn't need a reference and it's my lack of understanding once again. The ref for bullet points two and three are the same as for bullet point 4 so seemed appropriate. Since all four of these bullets points are one the website page reference listed for bullet point four, would it make sense and be appropriate to put the reference once after the heading "Ancillary features"? Then like you say, it's only referenced once.

• In hindsight for the Wildlife Museum bullet point it probably doesn't make sense to say "wildlife and paraphernalia". The museum actually contains everything you listed and a lot more. And all of it is used for education purposes both here at the Zoo during our daily lectures and on outreaches. With regard to outreaches, the source you reference indicates that we visit more than just churches and senior centers. And since we do go anywhere and visit anyone for these outreaches would you be willing to word that to be more encompassing? Thanks in advance for considering it. And once again my thanks for all you have done on the article and educating me!

2603:3023:120:BD00:C49C:516C:4317:BAA3 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Misty,

I have made some edits and added a ref for the Magnani Gallery Website. It has been nice helping you. I will not be doing any more discussing, no more bargaining. No more changes for now, the article stands. Some other editors will be reviewing it in the future. Regards--Eagledj (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you resend the email? I seem to have lost or misplaced it. ♥Golf (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you appreciate a fine musician. Just discovered this guy, Ben Lacy... blows my mind. There's many YouTube videos. This is the first one I saw... mouth hanging open by the end: [2]--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Lacy really is good— I didn't know of him. By turning up the volume, he makes the guitar ultra-sensitive to touch, then plays with both hands by hitting the fretboard with his fingertips (called "hammering-on"). The only knock would be that he might be called a "novelty act". Do you think he is notable enought for an article? Thanks for your edits on Earl Scruggs. I'm hoping to make it a GA and any help on that would be appreciated. While I have you, take a look at my latest re-write of an existing article, "Pedal steel guitar". Also, as you may have seen, I worked with Misty on Cougar Mountain Zoo (see above on my talk page). Hope your projects are going well. Best regards--Eagledj (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I know he's on some guitar magazines list of 100 best guitarist in the world, but I just stumbled across that, never did a check for sources. Maybe a "novelty act", but having looked at 50 videos he seems to be able to play anything... sounding like a whole band alone check this out, just playing around at a rehearsal. Yeah. I neglected the whole zoo thing. I feel bad. But I saw you taking action, and so I thought well someone competent is moving that along, see where it goes. Sorry bout that. I will look at Pedal steel guitar soon, as well as further sections of Scruggs. The lead and first section reads nicely, I just smoothed them a bit (I hope).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of bird terms is now a featured list by the way:-) The FA process always results in improvement, and this was no different. You will have an FA if you want to take up the challenge. Getting more GAs first will teach, but, for example, now that Diane Schuur was taken to the next level by you, I think it's ready for an FA. I'm not trying to push you, take you time, or don't, but if you do, I'd be happy to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ojorojo, I am working on the article slide guitar. As you know, I have re-written the lead and I am now working on both lead and body to improve the article. I have added several sources, and it is a work in progress. Now I find that the "Technique" section of the article is largely verbatim with THIS. Will you have a look? Should the section be deleted if it is copyvio? Also, is it possible that Youtube copied the Wiki article, i.e., reverse copyvio?? Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ojorojo, I am currently working on the body of the article to ensure it is includes information alluded to in the lead. I have added several sources. Best --Eagledj (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: The lead has been greatly improved. The History section could use some similar trimming – it has far too many rock examples and is almost entirely unreferenced. Also several of the existing refs seem to be blog-type user generated, links to retail sites, or are dead. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo:Thanks—have thinned it out and deleted some weak/dead refs. It's coming along. While I have you, would you weigh in on this merge proposal discussion of lap slide guitar per the template above that article?--Eagledj (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: More good trimming. A couple of points: Winter's style was well-developed before his association with Waters (this isn't mentioned in the AllMusic ref) and I'm not sure why Rogers is included (both come later). There could be more discussion of Nighthawk, Earl Hooker, Waters, and James (the Mount Rushmore of electric blues slide). Also, it may be worth mentioning the Stones' "Little Red Rooster", with Jones' slide, was probably the first song with a blues slide to reach number one (December 1964). Bloomfield and Bishop with Butterfield might also merit a mention as among the earliest blues-rock using slide (1963–1964). "The" isn't capitalized mid-sentence for "the Beatles" and the song titles should be in "quote marks", rather than italicized. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo:, Great points, I will certainly include them. Now looking at the "Tunings" section, considering whether to delete it entirely. It is boring and is covered elsewhere HERE. Also, the lap slide has be redirected to our article.--Eagledj (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: Yes, it should probably be added (briefly) to Technique, with the main ones in prose: Standard, open G, and D. Raising the pitch with a capo, etc., may also be noted, but listing them all is for the Open tuning article (which needs a lot of work) . —Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Take another look, particularly at the "Lap slide guitar" section. I am being careful in my words to reconcile "steel" and "slide" terminology, and need feedback on it. I didn't put capo in, but I believe the other suggestions are incorporated. I debated about Weissenborn being in, but it has diehard fans. Took out Roy Rogers. Great article HERE, got most of them.--Eagledj (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagledj: Too cool, even if he borrowed Mt. Rushmore (?!?). I've never heard of Jerry Douglas, but he is obviously a player. Sounds more like a steel player. The section has very few references, which definitely needs to be fixed. I'll have to look more at Weissenborn. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32, Thanks for facilitating the redirect from Lap slide guitar to Slide guitar, and also for your recent edit. I'd welcome any additional suggestions to improve the article if you have time. Regards--Eagledj (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note about using Template:cite web: "Omit [publisher parameter] where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)." This applies to the citations for AllMusic, Rolling Stone, NPR, Gibson, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my recent GAN comments strayed from the idea of "Lap slide guitar" as a playing style, rather than the guitar itself. If it is only a musical or playing style, most of this section needs to be refocused on style and not on the instruments. A link to Lap steel guitar should be sufficient for the instrument itself; two articles describing the technical aspects of the same instrument are not needed. More referenced material which specifically addresses the type of music needs to be added and my comments changed. What do you think? —Ojorojo (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is V*T*E and the bottom of a Wiki article, e.g., HERE. Thanks,--Eagledj (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

View this template, Discuss this template, Edit this template. Hover over the letter for that wording, or click on those three letters to perform those actions. Believe it or not I once asked a variation on that question. I asked specifically how I could edit the template. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bus stop I searched everywhere and was getting frustrated. Can you put something like WP:VTE or something so average people could find it? thanks Eagledj (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know how to do that. I hope someone else weighs in with any helpful information on that, as I would be interested in hearing more on that question. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully WP:VTE now redirects to the documentation page at Template:Navbox/doc#Setup parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the less obvious things around here :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Slide guitar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a couple of notes on the review page. Please address these/comment there before I add more. Or would you prefer that I make some of the changes myself? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo:, Sure, please edit at will--Eagledj (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sometimes it's easier than trying to explain. Please change as needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you reverted my changes to Harpeth Hall School on the talk page? Wikipedia is not censored, and articles are not advertisements. The fact the the school is all white in 1970 is an important part of the schools history. -- Billhpike (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that I confused Harpeth Hall with another school. My edit deserved to be reverted. I’ve since added additional citations. If you fell that there are still any mistakes, please note them on the talk page. Billhpike (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, An editor named Billhpike appears to have edited scores of articles about U.S. schools inserting negative racial remarks such as "...established as a segregation academy" and other inflammatory statements HERE. The edits predictably involve insertion of a racially themed sentence, often out of context. Such statements do not appear to be good-faith constructive efforts to improve the articles, but rather to promote some sort of agenda to shock and to inflict shame on these schools. One of my articles, Harpeth Hall School, has been affected by his edits as have those of many schools in my city and elsewhere. I have read his cited sources, and I believe his conclusions are not entirely accurate or balanced. I have reverted his edits only to have him restore them so I am asking you to weigh in on the matter. Best,--Eagledj (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are part of WP:DISCRIMINATION. The fact that some schools systemically excluded a substantial portion of the population is a significant part of the school’s history.

If you think my sources are inaccurate, please WP:BB and revert my edits. Please note any issues on the talk page, and I will reply and address your concerns. I may add additional sources or more detailed quotes to the article, such as I did with Harpeth Hall School.

Please also keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED.

Billhpike (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates to Harpeth Hall School. The new section on diversity is well written and accurately summarizes all relevant facts. - Billhpike (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Slide guitar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Slide guitar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eagledj,

Good afternoon. I'm wondering if you could review the FRA (Franklin Road Academy) wiki page. Although, I believe that the school history is important, I'm worried that as you stated as the shock and to inflict shame Franklin Road and other schools in not done in good faith. If you review the talk page of Franklin Road Academy, I have tried to work with the editors but overall the page still needs more balance. The shock is more on the fact the school itself was called Rebels but now called Panthers.

Thanks. Steveninnashville (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Walter,

I've been working on a stub article James Marshall Head. The pre-existing first three refs were dead. If you have time, can you restore them or show me how? Thanks,--Eagledj (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Bill Elliott (musician) overwrote the page with some content from Dennis Linde. I reverted your edits to Bill Elliott (musician). --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Bamyers99, On the Bill Elliott page... My embarrassing blunder. The Elliott article, long since finished, was in my sandbox and I deleted it there just borrow some space temporarily, but did not realize that doing so also deleted it in the main space. So why did the sandbox article mirror the main article? I looked at the main article before I did it and it did not say "redirected from ...." The current status is that the main article does indeed say "redirected from sandbox". Can you remove that and release my sandbox ? Thanks --Eagledj (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this article. Do you think the VA hospitals should have separate articles please? I am not sure how easy it would be to retrieve content about their histories. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zigzig20s, I don't think there is enough for separate VA articles. I'm doing some work on the Keeble article, and I appreciate your help and advice.--Eagledj (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may put in my 2 cents, I would keep the Keeble article as preeminent. Give Warfield his props within the article, same with the W-K firm. My impression, and it's just an impression, is that Keeble had significantly greater acclaim. I've just searched Warfield, and there are very few refs for him, and no one as yet has created a parallel Warfield article, so we don't really have a pressing merge dilemma here. -- Eagledj (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Warfield should have an article in his own right. If you can find his obituaries, that would help. My guess is that Beechlawn Advance and Retreat was his family home, and that he was related to William Frierson Cooper one way or another. See this for more.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take more pictures of Keeble buildings and upload them on Commons, that would be great. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s, Thanks for the ref. If you have newspapers.com, the Warfield obit HERE is very sparse, but I have found some more on him with some distinction between Warfield's and Keeble's designs which I have added to the article. What about Keeble houses that are not on the historic register? Should they be included? Yes, I do live in Nashville and the pictures are a good idea, but the photographer is not so good. Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagledj: This reads, "In 1936 Keeble completed his own home in Belle Meade, "Keeble Heights," in the Classical Revival style.".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s, You are correct above in saying what the source said, but I believe the source is not correct there. I tracked down Mr. Keeble's son Peter who was kind enough to return my phone call. He gave me valuable feedback on the article. One of the things that drew his ire was "Keeble Heights". He said no one in the family ever used that term for their home and that his father would most certainly find it objectionable, and asked that we take it out. I realize WP:OR and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, but I'm beginning to realize that these NRHP forms may not be reliable sources and must be rigorously verified. He also confirmed that "Belle Meade" was incorrect and it should read "Forest Hills". For now, I'm going to remove that ref. What do you want me to do here? --Eagledj (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the pictures don't have to be amazing. You can just take pictures with your phone, and they will be copyright-free. You may be interested in another architect: Donald W. Southgate.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can do some photos, but it will be incremental, whenever I happen to be near a site. Yes, Southgate needs a sentence on two in the Keeble article. Will do, thanks.--Eagledj (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, separately. I don't think they were related, were they?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, they were, but only for one year— giving it just a mention and a link. By the way, great work you've done on Donald Southgate. Impressive! I may get you some Southgate photos one of these days. Best,--Eagledj (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MisterCake, I have enjoyed working on Bradley Walker with you. I need some help— the part about the "track meet at Vandy", "the all-around athlete medal" and the "boxing champ"(citations needed) are from an old clipping I found HERE. As you can see, there is no source or date for either article. The first one is by "Pete Ezell" and says "another of a series on past athletic greats in Nashville". Can you help me track this down and solve the mystery? No luck in scouring the Tennessean. I will delete the statements if I can't verify. Best regards,--Eagledj (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We are trying to improve the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, a historic building where you live. Sources on Newspapers.com suggest it was built for the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, not the Masons however. Is there any way at all you could find out when it became a Masonic building please? If you can find the date, I can try to retrieve a source. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zigzig20s I have a lot of projects going, but I'll check in on Grand Lodge of Tennessee when I can. Meanwhile, an article that may help is HERE and maybe HERE. Best always--Eagledj (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source may be about a former building at the same location. The current building was completed in 1926 I think. I've added a bit more, and this leads me to think it was acquired by the Masons in 1937, but we would need a better RS. It's just not clear.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purchased by the Grand Lodge of Tennessee in 1937, but from Scottish Rite, not Odd Fellows. So there is a missing piece.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earl Scruggs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jburlinson -- Jburlinson (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Earl Scruggs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earl Scruggs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jburlinson -- Jburlinson (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Thank you for uploading File:Gordon Kennedy, musician songwriter.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eagledj, please see my reply here for an explanation of why the permission is lacking.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you can find the architects of the Sullivan Tower and the Draper Tower?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zig, You've done great work on these two stubs. I have a lot going now, but I love to have something worthy in the queue. Thanks for suggesting. Best, Eagledj (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx, You recently reverted my edit when I added a person's date of birth, Sarah LeBrun Ingram, citing WP:primary. As I put in the edit summary, I found the date in US Public Records Index,1950-1993, Vol.1 . It is an exact match of Sarah LeBrun + Owings Mills, Maryland, and was in the range of a reliable secondary source which indirectly gave her birth to plus/minus one year. A birth date is a straightforward descriptive fact. It seems that a date found in a such a source could be used, albeit with care. Giving a date of birth does not does not involve any interpretation. Here is Wiki policy:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. 

Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the policy regarding the inclusion of birth dates in biography articles is WP:DOB, which requires that the date be widely published in multiple reliable sources. A primary source in such instances does not meet the policy requirements.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikified Tennessee Golf Hall of Fame. Let me know if you intend to create it!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zig. Great suggestion. I have created a stub article HERE. Please look it over. Need some help with categories. Best always,-Eagledj (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zig, I saw your red link on Toby S. Wilt and have created a stub to get started on it. Thanks for suggesting.-Eagledj (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Horton article sounds a bit hagiographic ("success", "great people skills", "salesmanship talent", etc.). I would recommend toning it down.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please take a couple of pictures of the golf course?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zig. The "people skills and salesmanship" was a referenced (but unattributed) quote, but I removed it as you suggested. I also shortened the lead. Will get golf course pictures, but weather is dreary now--Eagledj (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your solution for "success" please? I have given it some thought and I haven't come up with one yet. But we can't have this subhead.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that I found who designed the course? If you don't have an account on Newspapers.com, I would highly recommend requesting one.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]