User talk:Rublamb

Cary, North Carolina

The "notable people" section of US city articles is for those with a Wikipedia article. Exceptions are made after consensus on the article talk page, per WP:USCITIES#Notable people. I hope this helps. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

At Cary, North Carolina, you removed citations from the notable people section. Those citations are not to prove notability; those people already has a Wikipedia article. They are to support that the person actually lived there. Could you please restore them? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Magnolia677 Thanks for asking. I have been working on the notables' articles, making sure a documented reference to Cary is in the article, and adding content with citations if needed. If I removed the citation from the Notable list, it is because that source is now used on the notable's page and / or there is even better proof of their relationship to Cary within the page. I added many of the citations to the Notables List previously to remind me that this work was needed. My little project is taking longer than I expected because some of the notables just had stubs; others had text but no sources, and others had not been updated in several years. One has been a complete rabbit hole with several related pages that are also problematic. Does my reason for removing these citations and project make sense? Rublamb (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If an notable person has a source, there's no need to delete the source unless it doesn't support the edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend, I'm very good at this, and I'm very careful before I submit an edit. Please stop reverting me before reading my edit summaries and checking the references I cite. It's becoming disruptive. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677 I could say the same for you with regards to my work for weeks now. At this point, you won't let a single sentence that I write remain. I reverted my revert of your photo edit because I realized you were bringing me to your level. I don't care about that stuff. What I care about is facts. Now, two people have told you that you edits to my work are wrong based on the facts. And that is what I am trying to address. Let me try explain. For example, you changed a sentence to say that Cary was formed in the late 19th early 20 century. False. You changed a sentence to say that RTP came in the 1960s. False. You changed a sentence to say that Cary turned into a bedroom community in the 1960w. False--it started as a commuter community to NCSU and Raleigh a decade earlier as explained in the history section. Your constant reworking of my sentences is changing the meaning. I get that you dislike passive voice, but I will take passive voice over incorrect information any day. Here's an example of how petty you are being. There is a section with four sources about growth==one the NC State Historic Preservation Office staff, the others Census and the City's own records with regards to growth. What more do you want. Who is going to be a higher source on population data than the city, the state and the federal government? I can keep looking for another source, but honestly, please stop reworking sentences to death. It is not helping anyone and you are making page inaccurate Rublamb (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cary, North Carolina. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not remove sourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Cary, North Carolina, introduced cite errors. I am likely going to remove the puffery sourced by Business Wire, per WP:SELFSOURCE, but I cannot until the cite errors are fixed. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677 I removed the entire section so I can figure out why sources did not transfer correctly from my sandbox, turning into other sources. That is a strange thing indeed. I will x business wire from the text as well. That was not my only source, so there is not an issue. Thanks for letting me know there was a citation issue. Rublamb (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Rublamb! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Overzealous deletion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Bevin Prince edit

I appreciate your effort to add a cited date of birth to Bevin Prince. Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB), so it cannot be used to support a date of birth. I have removed the date of birth and the IMDb citations that I found in the article. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Eddie Blick Thanks for sharing that list. Had not seen that before--now I have to figure out another way to document films and music for actors and musicians (since discogs is red on the list too). I will have to put on my librarian hat and search for her birth record. A lot of effort for someone I had never heard of her until I tried to clean up her unsourced page. Thanks again. Rublamb (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Many people are not so polite when I post messages like that. I appreciate your interest in trying to add sources to articles. Trying to find reliable sources is sometimes frustrating. Unfortunately, many articles use IMDb and other unreliable sources, which can lead people to think that they are acceptable. I try to remove all that I see, but that's just the proverbial drop in the bucket. If you have not already seen WP:USERGENERATED, you might want to read it for names of more unacceptable sources. Also, are you aware that filmreference.com is not reliable? I found it listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and continue to remove it from many pages. I have accumulated a list of my own at User:Teblick/Reliable Sources. I probably should change the title to "Unreliable sources", because they compose the bulk of the page. You are welcome to look at it and use it for guidance if you wish. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Blick Funny, I was thinking how nice it was to have someone contact me to explain why you made a change. But you are speaking my language re. credible sources. I can't believe that I didn't know about IMDb! I am going back to fix the pages I did this month--so you don't have toRublamb (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have to re-do those, but it's for the best. My main focus now is removing unsourced dates of birth from articles about living people -- another "drop in the bucket" situation. Eventually I will get tired of contending with having dates of birth restored with no citations and move on from that challenge. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings again, but your use of U.S., Index to Public Records, 1994-2019 to support the birth date has a problem of its own. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that public records are not to be used "to support assertions about a living person." I know that you are trying hard to find an acceptable source, but that paragraph is specific. I have not reverted your addition because I thought you might have found an alternate source that you can substitute. If not, you might want to just leave the article with no date of birth. Sometimes information that we would like to have is just not available from a source that we can use. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

|Eddie Blick]] I just deleted my prior response about how Ancestry isn't a primary source. Got it now! Wikipedia has a section acknowledges the differences between how it and scholars view primary sources. I was evaluating from the wrong perspective, so really appreciate your encouragement for me to take the time and understand. I am now sharing your frustration with DOB. And the former tv star is a perfect example. Her DOB is all over the Internet on blogs, fan pages, and IMDb. But these aren’t reliable sources. I can verify her DOB with Ancestry, but really shouldn’t as this is considered primary by Wikipedia. So, we cannot publish her DOB even though we know for a fact (until there is an obituary). Urggg.

I read through a lot of info, some of it twice. Ancestry is red on the list of reliable sources, but the explanation says, “Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred.” However, WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty vague about exceptions. This all makes the most sense to me when considered from the perspective of privacy. WP:BLPPRIVACY basically asks, "should we even publish a DOB?" If the person in question has self-published this info or their DOB is all over the internet, the answer is: publish. If the only place you can find it is going to a source like Ancestry, the answer is no.

WP:DOB says “If …the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.” Year only seems to fit for most of the bios I have tried to fluff. And will make it a lot easier to find in a usable source. Although, I am beginning to think your approach of just deleting is the easiest and not even trying may be the best.

Sorry this was so long. Sometimes “talking” helps me thinks. LOL. I am really glad that you found me and have given advice. Big, big help. Rublamb (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like your rational approach regarding date of birth. Unfortunately, many dates of birth that I remove are restored (unsourced) by IP editors, so that I can't contact them about it. Some non-IP editors that I have contacted are offended that I removed their addition. One replied with a post that listed about a dozen web sites that gave the subject's OOB and said that I should see which source(s) met my requirements and then add the date myself with the appropriate citation(s). In my reply, I explained that the links I had put in the earlier message pointed to not my requirements but standards set up by Wikipedia.

I find Wikipedia's guidelines about primary sources to be confusing, so I avoid them as much as possible. When I create an article about a person, if I don't find a date of birth (or death or marriage) in a reliable secondary source (ususally a magazine or newspaper) I leave it out.

I agree about the benefits of discussion. If you have other topics you would like to discuss with me, feel free to post a message on my talk page or write via email ([email protected]). I'm still learning about working on Wikipedia, but I will be glad to help you if I can. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtland, Virginia

Could you please use citation needed tags? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Magnolia677 Hi Magnolia. I will take a look, but I just copied and pasted the existing code on that page for citations needed. Did you also contact the other poster as well? Or am I the only one? Just wondering because this is beginning to feel a bit like harassment. I moved away from the Cary, NC page because of your over guarding and excessive deletion. Please stop reviewing my contributions to other pages. I think you know enough about me by now to know that my plan is to go back and find citations for the Courtland page. FYI, when looking back, I found that I made my first changes to Wikipedia in 2008. I am not a beginner and do not need a babysitter. I would not mind a friend and mentor, but don't want this type of "help" you have been providing to date. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Bamberger has been accepted

Bill Bamberger, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 18% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glover Crane Arnold has been accepted

Glover Crane Arnold, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 18% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

>>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Rublamb

Thank you for creating Stockton B. Colt.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Very meticulously written, good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Zebulon Baird Vance Monument

I appreciate your effort to improve the article. However, I question how much of the large amount of information about this monument is really an improvement to the article. At this point, I will assume anything about the monument itself can stay. But what you added about Vance himself may be better suited to the article about the man. We can discuss and reach a compromise, though I was hoping to find others who would help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with the section on Vance being reduced. Actually, I had already moved some of it to Vance page previously, but really didn't want to get involved with that article. I started on the monument as a side project to working on the architect, Richard Sharp Smith. With regards to the text about Vance, there was a lot there==especially the quotes from local people as to why they did or did not support the monument==before I started editing. (Most of the controversy section has grammar and prose issues; sorry I didn't fix everything). Meaning others are involved and may have opinions. Since the monument is gone, the debate may or may not be relevant to anyone anymore. My thought was that it did make sense to have both the positive and negative aspects of Vance stated since it was a debate about the man and his worthiness for a monument. Maybe just not as much as was there. Does that make sense? Rublamb (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about adding to the Vance article. I'm sure more of what you added about him can stay with the monument. I just don't know how much. I'm working on what I didn't add to the controversy section as I find it.

In the meantime, please make your comments here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You said you didn't want to get involved with the Vance article, but I see you did. I'll trust everything you added is fine.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. You were correct that it was lacking content, and I decided to see what I could do. I had other projects on my list--but the great thing about Wikipedia is that articles don't have deadlines Rublamb (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

There's just so much there and I wouldn't know what should and should not be there. Anyway, anything about the man is probably all right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, as somewhat of an expert in 19th century western North Carolina history, I did have a good idea as to what should be included on Vance. I just try to avoid giving Confederates more space in Wikipedia as there is already a great deal of representation. But the Vance article, like the monument article, should be up to B status now. That is a far as I try to take things. Thanks for the push/reminder that this article was wanting. I even moved more from the monument to the bio. Rublamb (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

And I appreciate all the work. I misread one of your latest additions, and I was unaware as I guess the Asheville Citizen-Times didn't cover this, but I thought I read they're still trying to put the monument back up. While this sort of goes against what Wikipedia is all about, I just want to say I would support that. It's an iconic structure in Asheville and if a place could be found and a reason could be found to justify it, I really hope the other court case leads to that happening. Gloria Victis was moved to a better place. Those men served. I doubt they actually supported slavery but they were fighting for what was at the time their country.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

See the last paragraph under Law Suits, indicating that the 26th voted to appeal to the state Supreme Court. According to that article, they are now waiting for a similar case to be heard and to find out if the Supreme Court decides to hear the 26th's appeal. If you can find more in the Citizen-Times, do add it to the article--I have to wait for it to show up in Newspapers.com. Several years ago when the threat to the monument became serious, I was contacted by several people in Asheville for my opinion and what I knew about its history. I know people on both sides--lots of respect for all. But it was an incredible work of art and one of the most iconic structures in Asheville. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are in North Carolina, ProQuest has the Citizen-Times if you go to a library. I just haven't seen what you saw.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK

I nominated an article that you created for the Wikipedia main page under Did you know - Template:Did you know nominations/Julian M. Wright. SL93 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I am honored. Rublamb (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. The article was approved for promotion, but it could take over a month to reach the main page because of the huge Did you know backlog. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Julian M. Wright

On 25 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julian M. Wright, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that judge advocate Julian M. Wright was once a fencer, and President Theodore Roosevelt attended one of his matches in 1902? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julian M. Wright. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julian M. Wright), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Frederick E. Olmsted

Excellent article, very nice work! -- Mainly 14:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Rublamb

Thank you for creating Frank Howell Holden.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Rublamb

Thank you for creating Mike Edwards (American journalist).

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article!

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.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as John T. Downey. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa John T. Downey was a pre-existing article that lacked sources. I found sources that backed the pre-existing content, and added new content with sources. I edited in good faith that the existing content was not plagiarized (although I fix plagiarism when I find it). I also added sources that I thought were sound, not plagiarized. I personally do not believe in just copying content without quotation marks even if it is in public domain. If you will note, every single sentence that I added to Downey has a source. If you can be more specific about what part of this article was plagiarized and what the public domain source was, I will be glad to try and fix it. Cheers. Rublamb (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)