User talk:Cbl62

Archives

1. Old
2. 2011
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2014
6. 2015
7. 2016
8. 2017
9. 2018
10. 2019
11. 2020
12. 2021

Nomination of List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles! We're beginning to plan in-person and virtual events for 2022, and your support is needed as we re-launch the LA User Group. Please get involved! If you have ideas, or if you're interested in helping to lead the group, leave a note at Ideas for 2022 on our talk page. Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

--JSFarman (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mally Nydahl

On 5 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mally Nydahl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mally Nydahl, "one of the greatest backs ever to come out of the Middle West", used his football earnings to pay for medical school and became a professor of orthopedic surgery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mally Nydahl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mally Nydahl), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Mally Nydahl newspaper image?

Greetings, Cbl62. (May I call you Cb?) I was looking at recent DYKs without images to add images to (I do that occasionally), and found this article. Since it's an early 20th century US subject, those sometimes have images that have entered the public domain. So I looked at Newspapers.com and found a photo on The Minneapolis Star, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 15 Mar 1927, Tue Page 13, that I was ready to upload under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice (that issue is only 16 pages long, and I couldn't find a copyright notice on any of them; if I had found one, I would have searched copyright records to see if it could be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed) ... when I noticed that someone with a somewhat similar username to yours had clipped it the very day that you started work on the Mally Dydahl article. So - um. Any chance you've already seen this image, and rejected it for some reason? Is there a copyright notice somewhere on those pages that I missed? Or any other reason you didn't think it worthy of uploading? I mean, it's not the best conceivable photo, it's a little bit grainy, but it is full face, distinguishable, I'd certainly call it better than nothing. If there is a reason you considered it and specifically don't want it, I won't upload it, but otherwise, ready when you are, Cb. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: I am sometimes unsure about using images that are not in public domain based on age, but if you think the image is usable, then by all means ... and thank you for your help. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsman Melvin Mally Nydahl of the University of Minnesota in a Minneapolis Star photograph

Great, I was hoping it was something like that. Yeah, image copyright can be complex and scary; I didn't mess with it much in my first 5 years here, then gradually got more confidence by watching and reading debates as some images were successful and which got deleted. I still make mistakes, everyone does, but I would like to think I understand a fair bit more now. All we can do is the best we can. Hope you like. --GRuban (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Art Pharmer

On 5 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Art Pharmer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former NFL halfback Art Pharmer pursued, tackled, and captured a shoplifter who ran from the sporting goods store where Pharmer worked? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Art Pharmer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Art Pharmer), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Bacon (American football)

On 7 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Francis Bacon (American football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Francis Bacon played in the first National Football League game and became the first NFL player to return a punt for a touchdown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Bacon (American football). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Francis Bacon (American football)), 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, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 3796 views (316.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022—nice work!

DYK for Steve Hamas

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Steve Hamas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steve Hamas played in the National Football League and later beat two former boxing champions in the ring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Hamas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Steve Hamas), 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, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

LA to FA 2022

LA to FA 2022

Dear Cbl62, You're invited to a zoom call, taking place on February 11, with the goal of improving the article on Los Angeles to Featured article status! I often find it daunting to approach the Big Subjects on my own—so if you, like me, want a time to sit down with fellow dedicated editors and tackle something important and complex, this is the zoom for you! I, unfortunately, have no way to transmit snacks over zoom; but I trust you to exercise good judgement and discretion in selecting snacks of your own. Hope to see you there—if you're interested, add your name here! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

DYK for 1912 Army Cadets football team

On 11 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1912 Army Cadets football team, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a future president of the United States played halfback for the 1912 Army Cadets football team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1912 Army Cadets football team. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1912 Army Cadets football team), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,944 views (578.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022—nice work!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dennis?

Any chance you'd be willing to revisit the Amanda Dennis AfD now that I've made a full source assess table? The most comprehensive source from S.A. Julio's comment turned out to be an unattributed direct copy of a PSU press release. The Patch article was also a press release from her club ("—News release submitted by Arsenal FC and Elite Clubs National League"). JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

2007 Shepherd Article

Hi Cbl62! I wanted to reach out and see if you could help me out with something. I'm drafting an article for the 2007 Shepherd Rams football team, and wanted to ask if you could maybe run a search on Newspapers.com for any articles on games/playoff games or rankings? I don't find much on Google and don't want to rely solely on Shepherd or other schools pages for a source. Given that they won the WVIAC and made it to the Quarterfinals, I figured it was a notable enough season. Let me know if that's something you'd be able to help with. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: This page (here) links to individual game recaps and box scores. As for press coverage, here are a couple: [1], [2]. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you!! Spf121188 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Football notability

I am very discouraged at how universal the opposition to the reasonable rise of the notability criteria to playing at least 3 fully professional games was. We seem a long way off from getting even semi-reasonable inclusion criteria for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

2017 Shepherd Rams

Hi Cbl62! I noticed you made an edit to my sandbox about Findlay (I'm using the sandbox now to create a template for a new Shepherd page,) but I had the 2017 Shepherd page published already. I went by what the NCAA article noted, that it was Findlay's first ever postseason appearance, but I didn't realize they had been in the postseason in the NAIA (per the pages you noted in your edit summary.) So, in the 2017 page, I went ahead and specified that [3], so I appreciate your letting me know! I'm still kind of getting a grip on making new articles, so any help is appreciated. Thanks again! Spf121188 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

See this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Arnold Oehlrich

On 20 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arnold Oehlrich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nebraska's "Itch" Oehlrich was lured by the "scratch" of $100 per game to play in the National Football League? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arnold Oehlrich. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Arnold Oehlrich), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Gösta Grandin

Something is going on that seems odd. In reverting your edit on Gösta Grandin that changed it to a redirect, the editor that did so gave as his reason "jpl by proxy". This seems very odd since I never even mentioned Grandin in my edits, and I never proposed redirecting all these articles. The fact that the same editor started 3 nominations yesterday to delete articles that I created, also seems very interesting. A large percentage of the Olympic articles I have nominated were created by this editor, but this is largely a function of this editor havingcreated so many articles on Olympians. There is something a bit odd about the whole set of interactions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

See WP:ANI#Lugnuts and revenge AfDs. Fram (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC Notifications

Moving this to your talkpage, as it is starting to distract from the RFC. First, the notice I replaced yours at WP:NSPORT with is a standard template. It doesn't provide much information, in order to ensure that it is not a biased message.

Second, the primary issues with your message are relating to how it twice suggests that NSPORT is being unfairly targeted, with language like "targeted solely at NSPORTS", though the rest of the message isn't ideal and would have been better as a standard template. As for the issue of the audience being partisan, I feel that is obvious. As such, I again ask that you remove those notices, and neutral ones can be added to various nonpartisan noticeboards, as well as to WP:CENT. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I endeavored to be neutral in my notice and believe I did so. However, in response to your notes, I am modifying it to eliminate "targeted" and a couple other tweaks, including bolding, to address your concern. That said, I do believe it is essential notify the projects that are directly impacted by the proposal. As I noted at the RFC, such dramatic changes should not be made without notice to the impacted projects. If you believe neutral notices should also be provided elsewhere, I do not object. Happy to continue the discussion if you have further thoughts. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would ask that you replace it entirely with the standard template, as I believe there are still bias issues with the altered notice that I have seen, at WP:NSPORT.

For example, the line The new proposal is directed solely at NSPORTS and would not impose similar changes on SNGs for academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category is not necessary, and continues to suggest that NSPORT is being unfairly targeted.

As for the audience, a simple question: Do you believe that the members of the wikiproject are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to support the proposal compared to the average wikipedian? BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I made changes as you suggested. In what other ways do you believe the notice is still not neutral?

If you follow NSPORTS, you will see that it's a mixed bag that includes viewpoints from all sides of the spectrum. I view myself as a centrist but I tend to vote "delete" more often than "keep" at sports AfDs. The central issue here is that these projects are directly impacted by the proposal and deserve to be notified of significant proposed changes to guideline governing their efforts. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have now stricken "directed". I do think it's important to note that it only changes NSPORTS and not other SNGs. Indeed, there was confusion on that point, and you yourself thought it was important to clarify/emphasize in your comments: ""I believe this will only affect WP:NSPORT". Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS involves more editors than just those from the sports wikiprojects. I have no issue with a notification being issued there. The issue is the wikiprojects, and I believe it is a fair assessment that they are more likely than the average editor to oppose the proposal. Indeed, four five editors show up shortly after you issued the notifications; two three of them are members of notified Wikiprojects (Tennis, Cricket, and Ice Hockey), a third fourth appears to be closely connected with another notified Wikiproject, Football. All of them !voted "oppose" (the fourth fifth !voted "support", and there is no obvious connection with a wikiproject yet), and while this is a small sample size, it does suggest that the notified audience is partisan and so notifying them violates WP:CANVAS.

I see you have been changing small aspects of that quoted sentence, but I still believe it is entirely inappropriate - it continues to suggest the NSPORTs is unfairly targeted. Further, I see no reason for it - why does it matter to WP:FOOTBALL that WP:TENNIS is affected but WP:NSCHOLAR is not? Honestly, the only solution to the messaging problem is the standard template.Turns out, not the only solution. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am striking the sentence that you object to. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I just saw that - the message seems generally appropriate now. However, the issue of the partisan audience remains. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was neutral to begin with, but I am ok with your suggested changes. As for the audience issue, RfC rules expressly authorize (even encourage) notice to relevant Wikiprojects. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC: "To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: ... Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects." The wikiprojects where I posted are precisely that, "relevant WikiProjects." Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFC is an information page; if it conflicts with a behavioural guideline like WP:CANVAS, then the guideline should be followed, not the information page. In general though, it doesn't matter how a partisan group is organized; CANVAS tells us that they shouldn't be notified, as it causes a vote stacking issue. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC is intended to ensure that there is fundamental fairness in making significant changes to policy/guidelines. A key element of such fundamental fairness is that constituencies directly impacted by a rule change receive notice (and an opportunity to comment) before the change is adopted and implemented. Such procedural fairness is of paramount importance in any democratic/consensus-based system. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why it is there; WP:RFC is an information page, and if it is contradicted by a guideline then the guideline must be followed, not the information page. I would further note that WP:RFC actually references this, stating: Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. BilledMammal (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your view that it is improper to leave a neutrally-worded notice to relevant WikiProjects about an RfC that directly impacts the scope of their work. Indeed, such notice is essential to ensure that procedural due process is satisfied. We shouldn't be adopting significant rule changes targeted at specific WikiProjects without giving those WikiProjects notice and an opportunity to be heard. This is pretty fundamental. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

CANVAS tells us that if the audience is partisan, then the notification is improper. In this case, the audience is partisan, and so under current policy the notification is improper. I understand why you disagree with this, and sympathize to a certain extent, but the correct response is an RFC to alter WP:CANVAS, not to ignore it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the notices were compliant with CANVAS as originally formulated. As modified (with your agreement they are now neutral), they are even more clearly compliant. This is not as though I selected particular editors who I believed would vote one way or the other. I have simply selected the NSPORTS projects that are directly impacted by the proposed change. Sunlight is good for democracy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, then, sunlight is good for consensus. A "consensus" reached in the dark without notice to the impacted parties is not a real "consensus". Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Having read both of your arguments, I am of the opinion that notifying WP:NSPORTS was appropriate under WP:APPNOTE. I really don't see a reason to keep them in the dark. However, I agree with BilledMammal that the notification was not neutrally worded: the more neutral title was the one employed by the proposer, and I think you've misconstructed the proposal with the bolded quote as being integral to the proposal, instead being one of the potential additional guidances (I'm stressing the "could" part of the sentence of the original proposal). In my opinion, that's close to canvassing. Pilaz (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Pilaz: I realize I haven't been entirely clear; to clear things up, I had no issue with notifying WP:NSPORTS, except with the particular message chosen. What I had an issue with was the decision to notify the various wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Cbl62 - hope you are well. Seeing as I didn't mention it in the ANI thread, I wish to apologise for saying you were acting as a proxy for JPL. It was wrong, and I should not have said it. Sorry for the belated reply. I understand if you're not interested, and want to remove this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Lugnuts. No hard feelings on my end. You were defending your work, and we can all get sensitive/prickly when we feel our work is being attacked. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Cbl62! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Searching for my own edits by specific dates, 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) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Stefan Lindberg

• Thnakyou for your comments on Stefan Lindeberg. It seems to me that some people are intent on ignoring the spirit of the ruling on Olympic notability by trying to preserve most of the existing articles, at least at the level of categories, as redirects. They seem to do this even when there is clear evidence that there is no reason to presume this would be the primary use of the name. This is just assuming this specific spelling. There evidently was a recurring character in a Danish TV show named Stefan Lindberg. I am not sure how likely Danish/Swedish speakers are to confuse those names, but as an English speaker I did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Blog post about Fred Bonine

May be of interest: [4]

All the best, JBL (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:JayBeeEll: Loved the bit about "And who might Cbl62 be?" Cbl62 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha yes :). I am always surprised when I mention to friends that I edit Wikipedia just how opaque this side of things is to them. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs unblock.

Can someone unblock the page about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) now, please? 151.34.191.232 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

2005 Shepherd Rams

Good morning Cbl62! I wanted to see if I could get some help with newspapers.com, specifically looking for some press coverage of the 2005 Shepherd Rams football team. I have the draft submitted to AfC here, but a simple google search doesn't bring up too much. This particular year, Shepherd won their conference and made playoffs, so I'm thinking there has to be some coverage. Is this something you can help with? I appreciate your help! Spf121188 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The All-Time Greatest Hits of Faron Young (Capitol).png

Thanks for uploading File:The All-Time Greatest Hits of Faron Young (Capitol).png. 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) 04:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sig cov

Avoiding the fray for a bit. You probably were aware that the two sources you cited at the Fitzgerald AfD as "three paragraphs in length" were at the same time only 3–4 sentences too. Considering your NSPORTS proposal #5, I'm anticipating that people would expect more from that one source minimum, if enacted. The interesting thing is that WP:SIGCOV keeps morphing over time. Currently, its vague whether it's signifcant coverage in each of multiple sources, or cumulative signficant coverage from even multiple smaller mentions. Fitzgerald looks like more of the latter, which might arguably be deleted with proposal 5. Food for thought.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

David Hearst House

Hi Cbl62 hope u r well. I happen to be watching Bitchin': The Sound and Fury of Rick James, a 2021 documentary on Amazon Prime until 2/28, which happens to show overhead footage of what was a spectacular home of Rick James off Coldwater Canyon. This is after 49:00 in the documentary, includes James saying "We were living in Randolph Hearst's mansion...I mean, we were, like living big time" and it was a party house. Nate Hughes: "I mean, the house was so big, you rarely ran into each other." Levi: "there was some stupid shit going on out there" and it goes on, and it related to James' bad boy persona. I wondered if the house could be what I recalled from way back, the Harold Lloyd Estate (article which you developed back in 2008 and which i earlier tried to photo from afar, from a ridge which might or might not have overseen it, but i zeroed in on the wrong place on the split-up property), but it is not. Certainly a great house, akin perhaps to The Manor (Los Angeles) 2009 article, it seems to me like it should be one covered in Wikipedia. AFAICT it is not NRHP-listed, and is not in California Historical Landmarks in Los Angeles County. And I think it is outside of City of Los Angeles so not a LAHCM. There is good amount of coverage of the house though, including: LATIMES 1989 article "Onetime estate of L.A. publisher David Whitmire Hearst lists for $13.5 million": "The hacienda-style estate in the Beverly Hills Post Office area ..."

Also David Whitmire Hearst is the only one of 5 children of William Randolph Hearst and Millicent Hearst without a Wikipedia article, and there is enough about him in sources for an article, including David Whitmire Hearst, Official of Hearst Corp., Ex-L.A. Publisher, Dies", LATimes obit of May 13, 1986. Some coverage and photos of Hope Chandler and David in this New Yorker stuff who were married 1938 until his death in 1986. (Not same as David Whitmire Hearst Jr. (in a Forbes profile), who bought a Couer D'Alene estate which might possibly also be referred to as a David Hearst House.

I wonder if you might be interested in developing, or helping me develop, one or two articles here? Perhaps to try at Draft:David Hearst House, hopefully to include some Rick James coverage from the documentary (or from elsewhere, but I am doubtful that other will be easy to find). --Doncram (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Squaws Along the Yukon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBSC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you "withdraw" from an AFD?

serious question Cranloa12n (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n: Just type Withdrawn in bold at the bottom of the AfD discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Larry Archambeault

If you have time, Larry Archambeault could use some TLC. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bill Smyth (American football)

Hello! Your submission of Bill Smyth (American football) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bruxton (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lloyd Madden

Hello! Your submission of Lloyd Madden at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Therapyisgood (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The bad NSPORT close

FYI, since you responded JoelleJay knew that, as we expressly discussed it, which suggests you were disappointed by what I said: I wanted to clarify my comment on subproposal 5 was intended to support your argument, not detract from it. I just wanted to point out the absurdity of his "from inception" interpretation, I wasn't commenting on the question of whether or how to apply #5 to existing articles.

I think many of the closing statements (but not the outcomes necessarily) should be taken to DRV, they are just too wildly divergent from the proposals themselves as well as the results. Closing statements are so critical to precedent, especially in gigantic discussions where future readers are obviously not going to read even 1/10th of one subproposal; they absolutely should reflect the actual consensus and accurately characterize participants' arguments. In my opinion Wug approached the close with preconceived opinions on what he wants NSPORT to say, but lacked the familiarity with the guideline to understand what the subproposals intended in the context of the existing NSPORT text, which is what led to his utterly idiosyncratic interpretations. For example, if he understood a) what the second sentence meant and why it is there and b) the concept of "presumption of GNG", he would not have had any issues with the "from inception" phrase in subproposal 5 and would have correctly deduced the only real point of contention was if existing articles would be grandfathered in or not. Unfortunately he has a history of being insultingly dismissive and resistant(*) toward other editors explaining how NSPORT functions, so I do not have high hopes he will make any amendments to his closes himself.

(*)This was his response to me in the NOLY thread:

Your comment is based on multiple false premises. NSPORT specifically requires article subjects meet GNG This is so false I suspect you haven't actually read NSPORT or N. To quote the big bold text at the top of NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (emphasis original). You incorrectly interpret policy on the talk page of that policy, and yet you seem to think that making more and more restrictive rules will improve compliance? Call me suspicious.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fernando Huergo

This is an interesting case. When I search for Fernando Huergo I come up with information on a contemporary Jazz musicians in google. I am not sure if he is notable, but if he is he would probably be the primary search term. When I search in google books my first hit is this [5] which is a note about a letter that was either to or from what seems likely to be this Fernando Huergo, but I am not sure I can be sure of this. Also he is in a category for being a Pan American game medalist, but no text in the article itself seems to say anything about that. This source [6] does support that he was part of a team of g from Argentina who got a silver in the 1951 Pan American Games Sabre competition. I am not sure if Silver at the Pan American games is quite enough to be sports notable, but we would still want something more than a bare name in a table which is all I have found so far. I am suspecting there might be some actual in-depth sourcing, but I have not found it yet. I was wondering if you thought you might be able to find some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: I found this, this and this which discuss an Argentine general of the same name who was president of the Argentine sports federation that was in charge of selecting the 1956 Olympic team. Unclear if this is the same guy or not. Also, I don't think these are SIGCOV about Hergo. Cbl62 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Koken

On 18 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Koken, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after surviving D-Day, former quarterback Mike Koken wrote that playing American football for Notre Dame left one "prepared for the toughest stuff the Jerries can throw at you"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Koken. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mike Koken), 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.

Schwede66 12:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Southern States Conference

Clb62, I admire your ability to unearth hyper-specific newspaper citations from long ago. In the spirit of WP:CFB collaboration, would you mind helping me put a bow tie on the references for Southern States Conference? Back in December / January, I spent probably more than 50-60 hours finding refs to beef up the history of the SSC, the members, the members' timelines, etc. It became an unexpected passion project. I previously pinged the college football project but got no response.

But then I hit a huge wall, specifically for:

1. The exact year Talladega College joined
2. The exact (or even approximate) year Selma College joined
3. Verification of the football champs in 1947 & 1950–1959 (I don't know if these are the champions however, I was just running with the teams that had previously been listed on the article before I began expanding it... some of those champs might be wrong)

Might this be an article you'd be interested in running the final turn of the 4x4 on? SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Smyth (American football)

On 22 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bill Smyth (American football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bill Smyth fought as a Marine at Iwo Jima and later played four seasons for the Los Angeles Rams? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Smyth (American football). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bill Smyth (American football)), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1930 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marty Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jim Lipinski.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Lipinski.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 17:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment. Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have: Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about no one just worry to the inspector that's what i'm saying bro

How we do best ever games 154.115.221.60 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)