User talk:Teblick/Archive 8

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

January 2022 Women in Red[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

suggestion[edit]

instead of removing every date of birth on wikipedia, perhaps just leave a [citation needed]? just a suggestion.

so like as an example you took out Lena Dunham's birthday, because it's "unsourced", but finding a "source" is trivial, and the source confirms what was originally there.

again you're the Wikipedian and I'm just a rando, so it's just a helpful suggestion that maybe you should do something differently. ✌️

76.22.27.95 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. You could actually be helpful and find a source which literally takes a few seconds instead of removing useful information. Or add 'citation needed' instead of aggressively removing correction information. 82.34.188.67 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
76.22.27.95 and 82.34.188.67, Thank you for your messages. I appreciate your interest in improving articles on Wikipedia. I will respond to both messages below. Since neither of you has a Talk page, you are welcome to reply to my response on here.
The reference to my "removing every date of birth on wikipedia" is obviously a slight overstatement. The dates of birth that I have removed have been unsourced and in biographies of living persons (and only a small portion of the latter). I will explain my reasons for doing so below.
At a basic level, an unsourced date of birth in a BLP violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. That policy says, in part, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." When a date of birth is not cited, how does a reader know that the date is correct? Up to this point, use of a "Citation needed" template might seem sufficient, as both of you suggested.
However, a higher standard is found in WP:DOB. which is a part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As a Wikipedia policy, "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." The "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" section of that policy states, in part, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." If I were to simply add a "Citation needed" template, I would be continuing the violation of this higher standard. The only way to indicate that the date of birth has been "widely published by reliable sources" is to cite a reliable source with the date in the article. Until such a source is cited, the date should not appear in the article.
One of you commented, "finding a 'source' is trivial", and the other said, "find a source which literally takes a few seconds". I commend you on your abilities to find published, reliable sources so easily. I readily admit that I do not have that talent. In my experience, the sources that are easily and quickly found are often IMDb and others that are not reliable because they are user-generated. A list of a few user-generated sites and some relevant comments are available at WP:USERGENERATED. Also, public records cannot be used to support dates of birth. WP:BLPPRIMARY says, in part, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..." That eliminates states' birth records and similar public documents from use as citations for date of birth in a BLP article. Unfortunately, Ancestry and other genealogy sites usually have public documents and/or user-generated content, neither of which qualifies for use in a WP citation.
I would appreciate your help in this regard. Since you are following my edits enough to be aware of my removal of a number of unsourced dates of birth in BLP articles, I invite you to follow such a removal by adding a date of birth accompanied by a citation to a reliable published source. Or, if you see an unsourced date of birth in a BLP article, beat me to the punch and add a citation to a valid source before I can remove the date. In either case, the quality of the article will be enhanced.
Thank you for your interest and your willingness to improve the quality of articles in Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful[edit]

You have added the nonexistent Category:CYear of birth missing (living people) to several pages. It would be good if you did not do that, and if you went back and fixed the cases when you did so. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedStatesian, Thank you for pointing out my error. I apologize and will try to make corrections. I appreciate your letting me know. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UnitedStatesian, I have corrected that error in Stockard Channing, Jane Adams (actress, born 1965), and Rachel Chagall. Have you seen other articles that have the error? Those are the only ones that turned up when I searched for it. If you can point me to others, I will correct them. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that was it, thanks so much for your quick response. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 48[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyda Roberti[edit]

Those birth/death dates were already there when I started editing. I thought about removing them for the reason you mentioned, but I didn't want to presume. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Cringy Username, Please feel free to remove similar dates in the future. I do so when I find them. I have encountered a few objections, but MOS:BIRTHDATE is rather clear that they should not be used. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit[edit]

I added a date of birth for Mary McDonnell and you reverted this due to it being unsourced. I can find a lot of date of births on other pages that are unsourced. Why specifically does this one need to be sourced? Darrenaustralia (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenaustralia, The date of birth in Mary McDonnell needs to be sourced for at least two reasons:
1) Citing sources is a basic principle of Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources.) Omitting a source violates that policy.
2) Additionally, a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person. WP:BLPPRIVACY specifies, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The only way to satisfy that policy is to include with a date of birth a citation that shows that the date has "been widely published by reliable sources".
With regard to your statement, "I can find a lot of date of births on other pages that are unsourced.", the fact that other articles have faults does not justify replication of those faults in additional articles. I know that your observation is correct because I have removed unsourced dates of birth from dozens of biographies of living people. BLP articles with unsourced dates of birth are violating WP:BLPPRIVACY, no matter how many do so. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Errrrm, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Well it claims to be but people like you banging on about privacy means that is exactly what is *isn't*. Well done making Wikipedia worse pal.
I did not create WP:BLPPRIVACY. I am just applying it. If you disagree with the policy, a better place to post would be Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Here, you and I are the only ones likely to see your comment. If you post your thoughts there, you will find a larger audience. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons[edit]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 49[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about BLP lead sentences and retirement from occupations[edit]

Hi, on 13 December 2020, you reverted my edit on the now retired actress Marion Ross page, mentioning that "retired" should go after the subjects nationality[1], as the sentence implies that she has retired from her acting career, not her nationality. I thought that made sense and a lot of BLPs on Wikipedia who've retired from or are former whatever occupations appear to follow that word order. So I assumed there was a general guideline on this.

But now, on Bruce Willis' page (he recently announced his retirement from acting), I tried editing it to have say "American retired actor", but my edits were reverted twice to go back to stating "retired American actor" with an editor citing an article from "Thesaurus.com"[2] and another user reverted my edit, supporting the putting of "retired" before his nationality. So I'm just wondering if there are any guidelines about this, because I don't think WP:LEADBIO mentions anything specifically about that. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for causing a problem. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Looking Glass, I should elaborate a bit rather than giving a six-word reply. You deserve a more respectful response than that. I still think that "retired" is more appropriate between "American" and "actress" (or whatever the profession might be. Unfortunately, I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline that addresses this topic, so I cannot help you in that regard.
Recently, in regard to an edit unrelated to this topic, I cited a specific WP guideline that includes "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are . . ." and encountered a rebuttal citing WP:5P5, "Wikipedia has no firm rules". I now wonder, "What's the point of trying to improve articles?"
Getting back to your post, even if we find a guideline that says "retired" should go in a certain place, someone who disagrees can call upon "Wikipedia has no firm rules" to undermine the guideline. It's frustrating. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Teblick: - Thanks so much for your informative reply! I see there's been discussion started now and the word order has been changed. But I do agree, it can be frustrating knowing that guidelines are not set in stone. I've had at least one discussion in a talk page where users seemed to disregard guidelines like WP:ETHNICITY, and the ultimate consensus may have technically gone against some guidelines provided. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Looking Glass, I don't understand situations like the one that you described. Being unaware of guidelines and policies is one thing; I'm still learning things that I had not encountered before. Intentionally disregarding guidelines and policies is another matter, however.
I encountered something similar recently when I reverted addition of an unsourced date of birth to a biography of a living actress. I put a message on the editor's talk page saying that besides Wikipedia's basic need for citations, WP:BLPPRIVACY applied. The editor replied, in part, "your opinion obviously isn't the majority one". I replied, pointing out that the policies/guidelines I had cited were not just my opinion but "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" (from WP:BLPPRIVACY). His or her response to that said, in part, "By the way, I don't generally check the rulebooks before I make an edit. There are way, way too many rules on the Wikipedia, so if you check all rules that might or might not apply you never get to do the editing. I prefer to rely on common sense." At that point, I gave up. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DOB[edit]

I've added the DOB for Abigail hawk page based on the Instagram post of her official 

page please check it out. I've also cited the source. Can you point out where it went wrong that you had to edit the page . 183.82.232.70 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to include a citation immediately after the date of birth either in the text or in the infobox. Mentioning the source in the edit summary is not sufficient. Eddie Blick (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Dorothy Arnold (actress)[edit]

Hello; I recently added Dorothy Arnold's resting place to the infobox on her page. You are correct that there probably isn't enough info to conclusively state that Desert Memorial Park in Cathedral City, California is her final resting place. While looking into the matter, I found that her obituary states she died at the "La Gloria Clinic, in Ensenada Mexico", not in Palm Springs, California, as stated in the Wikipedia article. Her obituary also said her home was in Cathedral City, California at the time of her death. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dorothy Arnold's Find-a-Grave page states, "Her ashes were deposited in the Pacific Ocean", and that she died in Tijuana, Mexico. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your note, OvertAnalyzer. My reason for removing the resting place was that it was not mentioned in the text. Any content of an infobox should also appear in the text of the article, just as categories need to reflect the article's content. However, the lack of documentation is another good reason for not having it in either the text or the infobox.
    I should add that Find-a-Grave is not a reliable source for use in citations. It can sometimes be used as an external link, but not in the article's text. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teblick: Given that the article does not mention where Dorothy Arnold died, should that information be removed from the infobox also? I could add the information regarding the La Gloria Clinic in Ensenda Mexico, and use her obituary as a reference, if you think that is a reliable enough source.
OvertAnalyzer, Your suggested revision sounds good. I suggest that you make that change, with the obituary as a source. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Teblick,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 813 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

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 and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Linda Evans[edit]

Hi! I was reading the entry Linda Evans and I noticed the assertion that Evans went to Hollywood High School and was a soror of Carole Wells.

According to this 1985 Los Angeles Times article, Evans went to North Hollywood High School. Did you have a source for adding Hollywood High? I didn't want to edit it without running it by you first.

The sentence caught my attention because I was surprised to learn that Hollywood High once had sororities, which is somewhat unusual! Matuko (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Matuko. The source for the content about Hollywood High School and the sorority is this article from The Bridgeport Post. Feel free to edit if you wish. I don't know which article is correct and which is wrong. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 50[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Precious
Eight years!

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Eddie Blick (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Teblick,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 9496 articles, as of 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • 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 and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hi Teblick! Left you a message on my user talk page! God bless! Antonio Hotel San Juan Martin (si?) 01:48, 1 July, 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on![edit]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, 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 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Agar[edit]

Explain to me how an image of his tombstone, is not a reliable source.Wjhonson (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question Wjhonson, but I'm not sure why you are asking it of me.
I had to look back at the history on John Agar to refresh my mind about what I had done. My edit removed a citation to Find a Grave. It was not based on a tombstone. That edit was based on WP:USERGENERATED, which lists Find a Grave as one of several "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites".
After I read your question, I searched to see whether use of a tombstone as a source had been discussed on Wikipedia. I found one such discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Findagrave redux. As you will see, the discussion contains comments on both sides of the topic.
You might want to post a question or comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to seek current comments, since the discussion I linked is several years old. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
I just wanted to say thanks for being one of the first to say thanks (for my recent edit revert regarding WP:BLPREMOVE). While I stopped by your page, I noticed a few pugnacious commenters challenging you about WP:DOB edit reverts, and I'm quite impressed with your ability to respond not only politely, but with the genuine interest of community education. Cheers. Informationageuser (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Garrison[edit]

I saw the tags, and after a quick look around, I just opened an AFD. Not a whole lot to find. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2022[edit]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 51[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

  • New library partners
    • SAGE Journals
    • Elsevier ScienceDirect
    • University of Chicago Press
    • Information Processing Society of Japan
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Teblick,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • 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 and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Olsen’s Birthday[edit]

Whoops, my bad. Just out of curiosity: If webpages and public records are not citeable, what exactly is? TashTish (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TashTish, That's a good question. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a good place to look for guidance in that regard. When I am creating an article or adding to an existing article, I use newspapers most often. (The Wikipedia Library provides a certain number of free subscriptions to two websites that contain archived of newspapers.) Any of the resources provided via The Wikipedia Library should also be good to use.
The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page evaluates a number of sources -- some good, some bad, and some in-between. Most of them are ones that I have never encountered in editing, but I still check that page from time to time to refresh my mind and to see if other sources have been added.
I have compiled my own list of sources (mostly unreliable) at User:Teblick/Reliable Sources. Most of them fall under either WP:USERGENERATED (sites on which anyone can add content) or WP:SELFPUB (blogs or other websites where a person posts whatever he or she wants).
I hope that these comments will help a bit. Sometimes determining whether a certain source is reliable can be difficult. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message[edit]

Hi Teblick,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022[edit]

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Bob Crane[edit]

Have you contacted his daughter… Karen Crane ? By the way, I am Dick York’s eldest son Chris York Bewitched1968 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I had not planned to contact his daughter. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • 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 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022[edit]

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 52[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

  • New instant-access collections:
    • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
    • Project MUSE
    • Taylor & Francis
    • ASHA
    • Loeb
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Gene Hamilton article[edit]

Thank you for the article on my uncle, the radio announcer Gene Hamilton. Unfortunately the "Personal Life" section is inaccurate.
Gene had one adopted son with his first wife Jane, a son with his second wife, Mildred and with his third wife Anne (my mother's sister) had a stepson, a son, and a daughter.

I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor so I did not want to try to fix this myself. For documentation I can cite an article from the Mesa, Arizona Tribune Plus 7/27/89 which had an article on my aunt which reads "Their 40-odd years of marriage brought them a family...Each had a son by a former marriage, and they had another son and a daughter together" Unfortunately I have been unable to find this article online, although I do have a hard copy which I could scan if that would be helpful.
Also with regard to the conflicting birth dates cited at the beginning, Uncle Gene celebrated his birth on Feb. 22
Please let me know if there is any other way I can be helpful in fixing this. 2603:7000:8801:6B1F:C5B7:B54A:E022:189C (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2603:7000:8801:6B1F:C5B7:B54A:E022:189C, I appreciate your feedback about Gene Hamilton (announcer). I delayed replying as I thought about what should be done, and I'm still not sure. I tried finding the Mesa, Arizona Tribune Plus article, but I was also unsuccessful. I see that you also posted on the article's talk page, which I think is the best thing for now. Maybe someone else will have an idea on what to do. Meanwhile I will keep thinking about it. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick York[edit]

It would be cool if you added his children’s names. Or at least mine 😁 Christopher York Bewitched1968 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Teblick,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Elspeth Dudgeon[edit]

Elspeth Dudgeon in Becky Sharp (1935)

Hello @Teblick: could you please create an article for English actress Elspeth Dudgeon, best known for playing the role of "Sir Roderick Femm" (credited as "John Dudgeon") in the 1932 film The Old Dark House and later appeared in the 1935 film Becky Sharp? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. Unfortunately, when I checked the resources that I rely on for creating Wikipedia articles about actors and actresses, I did not find enough of substance about her to merit an article. Perhaps an editor who has created articles about English actors and actresses would have more success. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hunter (actor)[edit]

Hunter in Yellowstone (1936)

Hello @Teblick:, Can you please create an article for American actor Hengry Hunter who starred in the American crime film Yellowstone and also appeared in more than 124 films and TV series? 181.179.27.58 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. A preliminary search turned up a few good articles that might provide enough information for an article. I will see what I can do. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted Henry Hunter (actor). Thanks again. 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022[edit]

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Clara Guiol[edit]

Clara Guiol in Say it with babies (1926)

Hello @Teblick: could you please create an article for American actress Clara Guiol, who appeared in many shorts including many of Our Gang (Little Rascals)? 181.179.30.97 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion. Unfortunately, I found very little about Clara Guiol in the sources that I use for articles about actors and actresses. Perhaps another editor might be able to find more and create an article. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elspeth Dudgeon[edit]

Hello @Teblick:, could you please review this draft I summited of English actress Elspeth Dudgeon? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that draft is ready to be moved to article space. Congratulations! You found more than I was able to find when I looked. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Inside U.S.A. With Chevrolet (TV weries)[edit]

Hello Teblick,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Inside U.S.A. With Chevrolet (TV weries) for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Inside U.S.A. With Chevrolet (TV weries) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Teblick/Inside U.S.A. With Chevrolet (TV weries)[edit]

Hello Teblick,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Teblick/Inside U.S.A. With Chevrolet (TV weries) for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elspeth Dudgeon[edit]

Hello again @Teblick:, my request of submission for Draft:Elspeth Dudgeon was sadly decline by @S0091:, although you already said that it was ready to be moved to article space, so could you please help me with my situation, maybe my searching for other sources and information (In my case I founded here) or tell in your opinion to @S0091: of why you think that draft is ready to be moved to article space, in any case, your help is the most I could ask you for this draft to be finally submmitted. 190.219.168.53 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion obviously does not matter. You need to ask the editor who rejected the article why he or she rejected it. Then you need to work on whatever that editor thinks needs to be done to make the article good enough to promote it to article space. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teblick, in order to meet WP:NACTOR, she needs significant roles in multiple notable works. While the works appear to be notable, her roles, except maybe Dark House, were not significant (uncredited) and none of the sources provided have WP:SIGCOV about her. They are just brief mentions. Even the obituary was only a couple sentences or so. You might try Googles Books if you haven't already. Do you have access to the WP:Library? You are also welcome to resubmit it to get another opinion. S0091 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are quite a few Google Books hits for her (ex. [3]). If you can add a couple of those that have some good coverage about her, that should get her over the bar and may also help expand the draft a bit. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, S0091. I don't know how I happened to get involved in this anyway. I apologize for taking up your time. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and sorry, I thought this was the creator of the draft's talk page so didn't mean address you directly. AfC is plagued with promotional/bad drafts which this one certainly is not so its refreshing and happy to help when I can. S0091 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Flynn[edit]

Rita Flynn in The Public Enemy (1931)

Hello @Teblick:, could you please create an article for American actress Rita Flynn, who appeared in with James Cagney and Jean Harlow in The Public Enemy (1931)? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking, but I have learned not to get involved with requests for creation of articles. Perhaps another editor can carry out your wishes. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 53[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

  • New collections:
    • Edward Elgar
    • E-Yearbook
    • Corriere della Serra
    • Wikilala
  • Collections moved to Library Bundle:
    • Ancestry
  • New feature: Outage notification
  • Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in December 2022[edit]

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorja Fox[edit]

Hello, i saw that in my message box that you reverted my revision for Jojrja Fox. Can i ask, did you ever watched the movie Memento? And can you tell me who is that actress? https://www.imdb.com/media/rm3559996672/nm0289080 https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzg5ZWJmODItNjkzNy00MzFlLWFmMGMtMjMxNzcwOTNjYzIxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI3MDk3MzQ@._V1_.jpg https://s1.r29static.com/bin/entry/fdf/0,450,2000,1500/x,80/1505762/image.jpg Baris365 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baris365, Yes, I removed your addition of a citation to IMDb to that article. IMDb is not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:IMDB. You might also read WP:USERGENERATED, where IMDb is listed with a number of sources that are similarly not acceptable as sources for content in Wikipedia articles.
I have not seen the film that you mentioned. I don't know anything about who acted in it. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well did you read the article? Because it says:
"The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. "
So watch the movie first, and then i believe we can have an agreement. Baris365 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baris365, :As you noted, the article mentions, "two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source." I still don't see any need for a citation to IMDb. There are two possibilities: a) The film supports what IMDb says, in which case an IMDb citation is not needed or b) the film does not support what IMDb says, in which case a citation to IMDb would be incorrect. Whether a person watches the film or not, one of those two outcomes will be true. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Whitten[edit]

Hi @Teblick:, sadly the article of American actress Marguerite Whitten is lacking of information and sources, could you please help me improved? 190.140.147.233 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for additional content. Whether I can help to improve it will depend on the results of my research. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I had little success. I found documentation for her dates and places of birth and death and added that to the article's text. Otherwise, I found her name among cast lists for films but no articles that gave additional information about her. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reply[edit]

I generally agree if the Find a Grave link does not include a photo of the grave of the person. In this situation however there is one for her on the page. I just look at it as being common sense when it's definitive like that. Rusted AutoParts 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it assuages things, I could include this newspaper clipping that includes her obituary from the time. Rusted AutoParts 19:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to add a sentence about the burial in the text with that source cited. Thanks for finding the documentation. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is WP:GOODFAITH in quoting only a half of WP:BLPPRIMARY?[edit]

On 02:09, 26 December 2022, you quoted WP:BLPPRIMARY in part supporting your revert ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth"), but omitted the part that allows quoting primary sources ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions"). How do you expect a birth date to be discussed otherwise then by quoting it, please? Do you know another method of discussing hard data? What do you expect that a secondary source will do to a birth date, write it differently? Where is WP:GOODFAITH in quoting only a half of a rule?--98.113.209.92 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

98.113.209.92, I don't quite understand your point. Where has the California Birth Index record for Elaine Devry "been discussed by a reliable secondary source"? All I saw (in addition to the date) in the edit in question was the citation "{{cite web |url=http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/thelma_elaine_mahnken_born_1930_1380617 |title=Thelma Elaine Mahnken was born on January 10, 1930 in Los Angeles County, California |access-date=December 25, 2022}}</ref>".
I saw no mention of that primary source material for her date of birth having been discussed in a newspaper, magazine, reference book, or other reliable source. If you found discussion about it in such a source, mention of the source and an appropriate citation should have been included along with the California Birth Index citation. Such secondary discussion would certainly merit re-evaluation of the use of California Birth Index as long as the secondary source is cited, too.
With regard to your questions:
  • "How do you expect a birth date to be discussed otherwise then by quoting it, please?" As I said above, the discussion mentioned in WP:BLPPRIMARY would occur in other media before the date and citation might be added to an article. It's not a matter of adding content to an article and then looking for discussion in secondary sources.
  • "Do you know another method of discussing hard data?" No, I don't, but I did not write WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just read what that section says and apply it as I edit.
  • "What do you expect that a secondary source will do to a birth date, write it differently?" Again, I did not write WP:BLPPRIMARY, so I do not know what the authors had in mind when the section was created. My personal approach is that I look for such information in secondary sources, avoiding primary sources where living people are involved.
I suggest that you pursue this topic and raise your questions on one of two talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons is the talk page associated with the page where WP:BLPPRIMARY is located. Editors there might be able to answer your three questions. It is possible that some who were involved in composing the text in question might respond. The other option would be to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As the page's title implies, it hosts discussions about contents of biographies of living people.
With regard to your question, "Where is WP:GOODFAITH in quoting only a half of a rule?" The "half of a rule" that I quoted is my standard edit summary when someone uses public records as sources in biographies of living people. I consider what I quoted to be the most relevant part of the section. I have never seen the kind of discussion that the section mentions in a secondary source, while the portion that I quoted is more significant. However, I did include an ellipsis at the end of the quotation to show that the original source contained more text, and I included a link to WP:BLPPRIMARY to provide access to the full section. Do you really consider those efforts to be bad faith on my part?
I appreciate your interest, and I hope that you can find answers to your questions. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Willey[edit]

Willey in Three Came Home (1950)

Hi @Teblick:, could you please create an article for English- born American actor Leonard Willey who appeared in films such as Three Came Home, Penny Serenade and has already an article in the French Wikipedia? 190.219.168.53 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking, but I already have a long list of actors and actresses about whom I hope to create articles. Perhaps another editor can help you. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teblick/Archive_8&oldid=1139471359"