User talk:Teblick/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elvia Beatrice Allman[edit]

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edit (adding her middle name). I have re-inserted the middle name "Beatrice" - your reason for reverting was that FamilySearch was not an appropriate source.

However I am not referencing some unsourced data entry at FamilySearch, but gave links from FamilySearcj to legitimate source document images showing the middle name from her birth record and her marriage certificate. The fact they had "familysearch" in the URL did not make them invalid source documents, per se (it's not as if FamilySearch forged the image documents, eh?).

Miriam Wolfe[edit]

Why would you undo my edit? Ms. Wolfe is my mother and so I would know who her parents names are!!!

The fact that they observed the Jewish faith is also irrelevant and must be removed. Neoplop (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplop, I was just going by Wikipedia's policy of requiring a published, verifiable citation for material that is added to an article. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your edit provided no citation, so I removed it. As for the Jewish component, that was already in the article. If you wish to remove it, you may do so, providing justification for the removal in your edit. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Reid[edit]

Hey I saw you undid my edit on the Wallace Reid article because IMDB is not considered reliable; did not realize that. However the original information is clearly wrong and does not cite any sources. Do I just edit it without a source? I figured adding something was better than nothing. Cheers. Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Fredlesaltique. IMDb is one of a number of sources that are not considered reliable for use as citations in Wikipedia articles. You might want to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and scroll down to the "IMDb (Internet Movie Database)" entry in the table to see an explanation. (That page is also a good reference to keep in mind with regard to reliability of some other sources.)
As for the original information, if you are sure that it is wrong, I suggest that you remove it. Wikipedia articles should not contain erroneous information that is uncited. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply; it looks like IMDB is only used in certain circumstances. I'll just go ahead and fix the information and leave the source implied as the film itself. Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox parameters[edit]

If you have a problem with an infobox parameter, discuss your concerns on the talk page for the infobox. Please do not remove the parameter from the infoboxes on individual articles, as you did on Louise Brooks. As long as the parameter is part of the infobox, it can be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I didn't realize that I had a problem with an infobox parameter. The descriptions seem clear. Template:Infobox person says "resting_place" is used for "Location of columbarium, ash-scattering, etc. ...", while "burial_place" is used for "Place of burial ...". The article about Brooks says, "She had no survivors and was buried in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery". If she was buried, why should the parameter for "columbarium, ash-scattering, etc." be used? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My objection was to your removal of "Nationality". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for misinterpreting your post, Beyond My Ken. When I saw the change mentioned above, I assumed that was what concerned you. I appreciate your clarification, and I appreciate your pointing out that error. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 42[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Allan Case[edit]

Instead of removing citations, wouldn't it be better to mark them as "better citation needed"? 2603:8080:B205:EA12:5972:DDF:4EE3:4BC6 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your help desk question[edit]

I just now saw this question that did not receive a response. The Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Link rot (though you're obviously experienced so I'm surprised you didn't know about it) but I'm not clear on exactly what should be done in this situation. I sometimes remember that if I am using a web page that might change, I archive it, which is discussed where I linked to, but once it's too late to do that, all I can say is maybe there are other sources. I'm not sure who or where you should ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on my question, Vchimpanzee. I'm not sure what the answer is. (Apparently no one else cared.) Web pages like MSN Movies and Yahoo Movies seem to change frequently as new content is added and older material rolls off. When the editor who posted the citation did not create an archive of the page, I don't know of any way to find it later. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 42[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

  • New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Marianna Hill birth info[edit]

Greetings. Regarding [[1]]. In at least one interview, Ms Hill claimed to have been born in Portugal. Her birth in Santa Barbara was at one time, thanks to myself, verified by a secondary source: "Family Search.org" (affiliated with the LDS). That's now a sign-in only website, so someone else evidently used the California Birth Index. Too bad. This is on my watchlist, so I'll have an eye out for "Portugal" in the info box. One request (for myself & others): please use the Talk section to link directly to the policy mentioned for edits like this. Visiting the Manual of Style page doesn't turn up this policy. It required several more clicks. Tapered (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapered, I apologize for inadequately documenting the edit. I have posted an explanation on the article's talk page as you requested. Since you mentioned "Family Search.org", let me mention that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources classifies it as "Generally unreliable", with the comment, "FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research." Eddie Blick (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group discussion on Category:Months in the 20th century articles[edit]

Regarding...[edit]

...this,[3] his gravestone says 1916. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I have not seen his gravestone, but if that is the case, why not cite it in the article? My concern was that "August 24" was added with no source cited. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His Findagrave entry is in the external links.[4]. I don't know their source for the August birthdate. But the marker has the birth year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The California Death Index, from Ancestry.com (pay site) indicates the August date, as do other documents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, You don't need to tell me; just add the citation(s) yourself. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would look to you for guidance on the wording. Or I could just take a shot at it and you could fine-tune it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, Using the source editor, click on "Templates" at the upper left of the editing window, then click on Cite Web. Fill in the following boxes:
Title
URL
Website name
Access date

Those are the basic fields, but you can fill in more if you wish. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's from a pay site? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, Yes. Whether it's a pay site doesn't matter. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out how to define the URL, so I've posted the info and maybe another Ancestry user can resolve it. You get to it by searching, and then you get a URL that's specific to the search. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, What I do for URLs is to click in the address bar of the page that contains the information I want to cite and copy the entire address that is displayed there. Then I paste that address in the URL box of the template. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Todd's shooting down of the info, I'm not so sure it's worth the effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, I agree. Sometimes it's best to move on. Wikipedia has plenty of articles that need improvement. It's better to shift focus to another one than to get frustrated. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cool dude[edit]

just wanted to thank you for your contributions :D

Jayden Parker NZ (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Parker NZ, Thanks for posting that note. I appreciate your noticing my edits. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

templates for biography[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion. I was always planning to do as you recommend - I was just trying to suggest to the bibliography team as a whole that providing new users with a pre-made template that accorded with best practices would be a help for less experienced editors. I hope you can pass the idea on up the chain as alas you are the only person who seems to have responded... Davidbrake (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbrake, Unfortunately, I lack the influence to pass the idea up the chain. I don't know whether many WP editors are interested in helping newcomers. I was fortunate when I began working on Wikipedia that two experienced editors spotted my at-times-inept contributions and corresponded with me enough to keep me from quitting out of frustration. I am thankful for them, but I have the feeling that they were exceptions.
Since you know the value of templates, let me ask if you use macros in your work on Wikipedia. I use AutoHotkey macros on my Windows-based computers, and they save a lot of time entering frequently used text, such as adding a {{Citation needed |date=April 2021}} template in source editor when I am editing an article. Much of my research comes from back issues of newspapers, and I have a long list of names of newspapers and their cities and states so that macros provide quick entry of that information into the "cite news" template. If you use AutoHotkey or a similar program, I will be glad to share the text file of my macros.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Citations and ProQuest[edit]

Hello, thank you for your work on references. When you cite the New York Times, please search their archives and add real NYT URLs. The ProQuest links are useless for nearly everybody and they're not the canonical location. Nemo 04:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo_bis, Thank you for warning me about that. Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription to the New York Times online. I began using Proquest because each month I hit the limit for online NYT access. How can I get around that problem? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 43[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

  • New Library Card designs
  • 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on "Nancy (TV series)"[edit]

I just wanted to reach out on some CN tags on Nancy (TV series). I totally agree with the original sources removed as those were clearly unreliable. However, generally, per MOS:TVPLOT, the episode summary does not need to be cited as the episode is assumed to be the source (unless it's a "lost" episode that cannot be verified), so I removed the CN tags. Similarly, I removed the CN tag for the statement above the episode summary since it is evident based on WP:CALC. I wanted to mention my edit to you directly and the reason behind it so you knew what my thought process was, in case I'm wrong or you disagree. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerblog, Thanks for telling me about MOS:PLOT. I was not aware of that part of Wikipedia's style. I will keep it mind when I encounter similar situations in the future. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reverted edits on Cliff Edwards[edit]

I've restored the changes that you undid on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Edwards#Personal_life.

The WikiTree profile that is cited contains full citations for the sources cited. Please leave the changes in place. They make an important reference to Clifton's life.

edit to Margaret Sullavan[edit]

Hi! I am curious about your recent edit to Margaret Sullavan, since it removed relevant information. I think the MOS page/section you cite (MOS:BIRTHDATE) is referring to birth and death information about an article's subject (not, e.g., their children). However, I think some of this MOS page is not clear, so I will ask for clarification on that MOS page's talk page for clarification if you still think that that information should be excluded from the Margaret Sullavan article. Many articles of people list their children including their birth and death information. Perhaps I misunderstand the intent of your edit. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Cheers! 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Doctormatt, I understand MOS:BIRTHDATE to apply throughout an article, rather than just to the subject. Otherwise, why doesn't the section say, "... birth and death details should only be included after the subject's name ..."? Perhaps your request for clarification will shed some light on the matter. I have no vested interest either way other than an interest in seeing style guides applied in articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Eddie. I'll ask on the MOS talk page. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on the MOS talk page. Please chime in if you have more to add or want to correct anything I said. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt.

Adding Nona Gaye to the births section in 1974[edit]

Can I add Nona Gaye to births section in 1974.Arek333 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have never edited an article about a year, and I don't know what criteria are involved for inclusion or exclusion. You could either a) add her or b) post your question on Talk:1974 and wait for a response from someone familiar with that page.Eddie Blick (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Lee Erwin[edit]

Hi Eddie! I'm finishing up Draft:Lee Erwin (organist), which you may be interested in given his long radio career, and about which the sources I have say little, other than he was busy. Let me know if you want to work some of your magic on it before it goes "live on air". Thanks as always! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 78.26. It's good to hear from you. I will be glad to look over Draft:Lee Erwin (organist). You helped me so much through my rough spots as a new editor, and I still appreciate your guidance back then. I will read the draft tonight to get a feel for what is in it. Tomorrow I will dig into my old-time radio sources to see if I can find any additional information.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hutton (Birth Date)[edit]

Hello, just FYI - I've restored the birthdate you removed from Timothy Hutton, but replaced the source with a tertiary source that seems to be acceptable under WP:WPNOTRS. As this doesn't seem to be your first rodeo on this policy, I figured I'd mention this to you, in case you have any thoughts on the matter. If you believe Britannica et al are not acceptable substitutes here, I would ask that you take it to the Talk page for the article, because I'm not sure what else to use here. Cheers! Juansmith (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juansmith, That sounds good. Thanks for finding a better source, and thanks for the heads-up. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August Editathons with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anna May Wong infobox edit[edit]

Regarding your edit summary, "Undid revision 1035790766 rv good-faith edits, but people don't have to be notable to be in the infobox", documentation for Template:Infobox person says for the "parents" parameter, "Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." Does something about Wong's parents qualify them for the "particularly relevant" part? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie,
Thanks for the heads up; this is my mistake. Feel free to revert my incorrect edit. Glad to learn something I didn't know before. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Firsfron. I'm still learning about Wikipedia, too. I appreciate your kind note, and I will revert the edit. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice and contributions! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron, I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, whether it's by creating articles or editing existing work. I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve articles a bit.Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lee Erwin (organist)[edit]

On 30 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lee Erwin (organist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lee Erwin spent six years scoring every one of Buster Keaton's silent features? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Erwin (organist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lee Erwin (organist)), 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, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 45[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

  • Library design improvements continue
  • New partnerships
  • 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Helen Freeman (actress) [edit]

There's no reason to delete an external link to Findagrave. While the content is user-written (often taken straight from Wikipedia), it usually provides a record of the gravestone. Gravestones are not user-written content, they are physically there in the cemetery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, You are correct, to a point (which comes under the "Rarely" exception at WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL). In this case, the photograph supports the year of birth, which thus far has not been documented in the text. The date of death was already documented in the text. I will restore the link for that reason.Eddie Blick (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! To be clear, from my standpoint the only thing Findagrave is pretty much fully reliable for is the headstone and cemetery information. I don't consider the text verbiage to be inherently reliable. Sometimes entries will quote newspaper obituaries, which are not necessarily reliable either. Let's just say the verbiage is a "guideline" of sorts. Hence it's useful as an external link, but generally not as a citation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, That sounds like a reasonable summary. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz[edit]

Hello. Can you help me develop this article quality? Xuyen1 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xuyen1, I appreciate your asking, but the article looks good to me as it is. I work mostly with articles about American entertainers from the past, so I don't have any expertise to help with this article. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021[edit]

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Teblick,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

  • Library design improvements deployed
  • New collections available in English and German
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks on Bebe Daniels page edit[edit]

Greetings User:Teblick. Unfortunately there is no "You're welcome" option following a "Thanks"...but thanks for yours. Evidently some editors think they're posting at IMDB. (Insert Smiley Face here.) Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikiuser100. I appreciate your feedback. I think you are correct about some people thinking they are posting to IMDB. Trying to maintain standards is an ongoing process. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mix[edit]

Hi Teblick. I see you reverted my edit on Ruth Mix. I understand why you did it, but next time please inform me about the problem and I'll add sources. I've spend quite some time about finding all these spouses, dates etc, and then someone suddenly reverts them. It's easy to do that, but please also think about the other. Thank you. Trijnsteltalk 09:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll add the references... Trijnsteltalk 09:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trijnstel, The kind of notification that you request should not be necessary, because the citations should be added when the content is added. Why should you wait until someone reverts an unsourced addition to add references? On the other hand, why should another editor have to notify you that sources are lacking? Why not save yourself some time and effort and put the sources in when you put the content in? Eddie Blick (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in a signpost interview[edit]

Hi Teblick, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject actors and filmmakers interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), Thanks for the invitation. I just posted answers to the questions. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :)! Tom (LT) (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie Wygant[edit]

Hi Teblick. I created a new article today for television veteran Bobbie Wygant. If you'd like to help expanding her biography, that would be appreciated. At nearly 95 years old, I thought it was about time she got a Wikipedia article, and you are quite knowledgable about the broadcasting industry of the past. OscarL 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, OscarLake. I will look at the article and see if I can add anything. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OscarLake, I appreciate the tip. I had not heard of this lady until I read your message, but I am enjoying learning about her. I have added some content to the article already, and I suspect that I will find additional information to flesh it out even more as time permits. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 47[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teblick/Archive_7&oldid=1142744401"