User talk:Slugger O'Toole/Archive 7

Nomination of Samuel Dexter House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel Dexter House 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/Samuel Dexter House 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. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John Andrew Barnes III

The article John Andrew Barnes III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Andrew Barnes III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/John Andrew Barnes III at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve John Phillips (Puritan)

Hello, Slugger O'Toole,

Thank you for creating John Phillips (Puritan).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Unclear what makes him notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Boleyn:. Phillips was an eminent divine, which I think establishes his notoriety. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about William Adams (Dedham)

Hello, Slugger O'Toole

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, William Adams (Dedham), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (Dedham).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Hunting (Dedham)

Hello, Slugger O'Toole

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, John Hunting (Dedham), for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Daniel Slattery

Hello, Slugger O'Toole

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Daniel Slattery, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Hunting (Dedham) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hunting (Dedham) 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/John Hunting (Dedham) 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of St. Mary's Church (Dedham, Massachusetts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Dwight (died 1661)

The article John Dwight (died 1661) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This man is clearly if local and family interest but nothing indicates any encyclopedic notability. He existed, emigrated, was on town council.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 06:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Dwight (died 1661) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Dwight (died 1661) 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/John Dwight (died 1661) 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. PamD 14:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to WYDN, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good faith effort. I'm not sure what about it made you think it was disruptive. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Civil Action (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beacon Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Members of Congress from Dedham, Massachusetts

A tag has been placed on Category:Members of Congress from Dedham, Massachusetts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Andrew Barnes III

On 12 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Andrew Barnes III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 52 years ago today, PFC John A. Barnes III (pictured) was killed after jumping on a grenade to save wounded comrades during the Vietnam War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Andrew Barnes III. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Andrew Barnes III), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Benda (naval officer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Benda (naval officer) 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/John Benda (naval officer) 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. Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping

I thank you for expanding the History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1700-1799 article because it is now looking really good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.39.211 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hihihi

Hi I want you to know that I have been editing the Dedham 1700-1799 history page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:E5CF:7C00:78B5:ADBE:10B5:D7D2 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Slugger O'Toole

Thank you for creating Peter Woodward (Massachusetts).

User:Willsome429, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the page, much appreciated!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of signers of the Dedham Covenant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hayward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Enos Foord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enos Foord 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/Enos Foord 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KofC

No, it absolutely is not "all OK". Pages like "how to describe the benefits of membership" and "why you should become a knight"? Are you kidding here? More than half the content of that article is self-sourced PR. Guy (help!) 20:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Thanks for the note, but we should probably discuss this on the Knights' talk page so other interested editors can also participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, i was headed that way myself. Guy (help!) 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger, you appear to be adding more and more references from affilated and insignificant, low-circulation news publications. Please consider the points JzG has made. If content is noteworthy and deserving of coverage in an encyclopedia article, it will have been published in major mainstream sources, not just special-interest, local, or affiliated media. I am seeing very little of that in this article. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SPECIFICO. I appreciate the note and think I know why you came here but, like I said to JzG, I think it is best that we keep the conversation centered on the talk page in question. That said, I am of the opinion that all these sources are appropriate. So were other editors. So was the uninvolved editor who awarded it Good Article status. I am only making the effort to find additional sources as a gesture of good faith. Additionally, I disagree that affiliated (not sure what this means) and insignificant, low-circulation news publications do not count as RS. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I see nothing unusual with a Catholic publication reporting on a Catholic institution, for example, while the Globe And Mail may not, even though the latter but not the former would usually be considered a "major mainstream source." I don't know what the circulation of the Soviet Physics Uspekhi is, but I imagine that it's a lot less than the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or Le Monde. Still, for the article on Plank length, it is a perfectly appropriate source while the other two don't appear at all. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of James Foord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Foord 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/James Foord 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. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norfolk County, Massachusetts Registrars of Deeds has been nominated for discussion

Category:Norfolk County, Massachusetts Registrars of Deeds, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ミラ P 04:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ames tavern.JPG

The file File:Ames tavern.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Elizium23 (talk) wishes you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! May this be a time of peace, joy and goodwill towards men.

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/Christmas1}} to your friends' talk pages.

Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ames tavern 1.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ames tavern 1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban

On December 25, you received this sanction: "The consensus of the community is that Slugger O'Toole is indefinitely topic banned from edits regarding the Knights of Columbus, subject to the usual exceptions."

At 01:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC), you discussed the Knights of Columbus at User talk: SPECIFICO, which is a direct violation of your topic ban and is not subject to the usual exceptions. Please consider this a warning. The next violation will result in a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, That was my mistake. Mea culpa. If you look at the comment, you will see that I wasn't trying to influence anything related to the Knights; I was simply using it as an example. Now that I read the ban more closely, I see where I erred. It won't happen again. This is all unfamiliar territory for me. Thanks for the warning. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and I assume that there will be no further problems. I am glad that I did not block you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, Out of curiosity, how did you discover this? Is there some kind of bot or public noticeboard? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO's talk page is on my (very lengthy) watch list. I did not notice your initial inquiry there but did notice SPECIFICO's reply, and I remembered the discussion at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for all the good work that you do and your perennially constructive approach to editing and discussion. On the HES article, I agree with you that RWM's characterization of the June 18 version as "stable" is not accurate. Are your proposed changes basically to add the phrase with "one of the twelve degree-granting schools" and condense the organization to one paragraph? While I do not believe that the emphasis on "degree-granting" is necessary (because the fact that HES offers degrees is covered later in the lead), I would still be absolutely fine with your changes. Just wanted to let you know. RedHotPear (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help explain why you believe "one of the twelve degree-granting schools" is so important? This description is clearly not present nor would be warranted in the lead for any of Harvard's other degree-granting schools. In fact, that HES offers "undergraduate and graduate degrees" is in the sentence right after it! RedHotPear (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedHotPear, Thanks for the kind words. I am not always successful, but I try. I think conversations like this are best held on the article talk page itself so I will reply there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]